HDC_10 07 2004LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
October 7, 2004
Sister Cities Conference Room
City Hall
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
The meeting was convened at 5:01 p.m.
Members Present: Carolyn Newbern
Wesley Walls
Terrence Bolden
Wyatt Weems
Marshall Peters (arrived late and left early)
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Deborah Weldon
Staff Present: Andre Bernard
Charles Bloom
Ward Hanna
II.Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects
Legal ad was posted and legal notice was given on all of these items. There was one
property that was left off of the abstract list on item # 1, but contact has been made with
the property owner and they are aware of the public hearing today.
III.Public Hearing
•Item #1: 417 East 10th Street
•Item #2: 601 South Rock Street
•Item #3: 411 East Sixth Street
•Item #4: 507 East 8th Street
October 7, 2004
ITEM #1: 417 EAST 10TH STREET MINUTE RECORD
STAFF REPORT
(prepared by the housing department)
APPLICANT: Richard C. Butler, Jr.
ADDRESS: 417 East 10th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Construct two story wood framed out building with a garage and
workshop below and guest quarters above.
PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is
located west ofl-30, on the south side of Tenth Street, between Rock and Commerce Streets.
The subject project's legal description is Part oflots 10, 11 and 12, Block 58. Beginning at
the NW comer of Lot 12, run thence South 150 feet to the SW comer of Lot 10; thence East
along the South line of Lot 10, 51 feet; run thence North 63.5 feet; run thence West 32.5 feet;
run thence North 86.5 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 12; run thence West, 18.5 feet
to the point to the beginning. The middle part of Lots 11 and 12, Block 58 Begin at a point
18.5 feet East of the NW comer of Lot 121 thence run South 86.5 feet; thence east 32.5 feet;
thence N 50 degrees E, 44 feet; thence North 55 feet; thence West 63.5 feet to the point of
the beginning.
The purpose and intent of this project is to construct a two story wood framed out
building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above.
There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration.
1.New Construction (New Buildings);
a.Of primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern
of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
1. Shape
ii.Scale (height and width)
m.Roof shape and pitch
iv.Orientation to the street
v.Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and
divisional bays
vi.Foundation height
vii. Floor-to-ceiling height
viii. Porch height and depth
ix.Material and material color (if brick-closely matching
x.mortar and brick color tones, if frame--matching lap
dimensions with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum
siding)
October 7, 2004
xi. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves;
watercourses; corner boards, eave depths, etc. should be similar
in size)
xii.Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks).
b.Of primary structures, while blending in with adjacent buildings, should
not be too imitative of historic styles so that new buildings can be
distinguished ( differentiated) from historic buildings.
NOTE: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic
architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils,fish scale
shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building.
They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate
versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided.
c.Of secondary structures such as garages and other outbuildings should
be:
i.Smaller in scale than the primary building.
ii.Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the
primary building.
iii.Located as traditional for the street, near the alley, not close to or
attached to the primary building; and
iv.Compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were
no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Bob Peckley (sp) and John Jarrard were present to present the application. Richard Butler
was not present.
John Jarrard spoke for the applicant and stated that they would like to add workshop and
guest quarters to blend with the historic buildings. It will have board and batten siding
and be a two-story structure. A number of accessory
structures in area have board and batten siding. The Sanford maps shows an outbuilding
on this site in different location.
Carolyn Newbern asked what is the relation of the roofline to the roofline of the existing
house. The existing house is one story and this is two story. She asked if we will see the
roofline of this structure from street? John Jarrard stated that it is on alley, and roof pitch
is same as house. House is about 13 feet tall and start of roofline on new structure is 16 or
October 7, 2004
17 feet.
Carolyn Newbern asked about the relationship of the roofline of this structure to the
house at 1002 Commerce, (which this abuts). The house at 1002 Commerce Street is a
more modem building with a lower slope roof.
A comment was made by Bob Peckley that Curran Hall on Capitol A venue is a one-story
building with a two story outbuilding in the rear and this relationship would be similar.
Dense trees will probably block the view.
Wesley Walls asked if the windows were clad wood windows. The answer was yes and
they will be six over six, which was taken from the main structure.
Wesley Walls asked if column designs are similar to the main structure. The answer was
yes.
Wesley Walls asked the reason between board and batten versus lap siding. John Jarrard
said that historically, outbuildings were typically made of the inexpensive materials such
as rough cut board and batten siding. Bolden said that it concerned him and the
applicable guideline was that the secondary building should be "simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building". You have done that with the
windows and the columns, but the vertical siding and the dormers do not seem to have a
corresponding feature on the main building. John Jarrard said that the board and batten
is not critical.
A question came up about the trees hiding the structure from the street. John Jarrard said
that there were a lot of trash trees that are growing along the fence line and they would
lose a couple of those. You will lose some trees by putting in the driveway.
Carolyn Newbern asked what the function was of the dormer on the north elevation above
the porch. She stated that the dormer troubled her.
Carolyn Newbern disclosed that when the application was first received, Carolyn
Newbern did call the owner of the property at 1002 Commerce. She asked if the
property owner knew of the application since the son lived at the address and the property
owner did not live there. To this date, the McRae's have not received any information
about this application. The abstract list was examined and errors have been found on the
list. Ms. McRae has notified staff via email that she was aware of the application.
Carolyn Newbern mentioned this to the commission to state that 1) she has had
conversations with Ms. McRae, and 2) that a professional abstract company did not find
information that two other individuals had been able to find. Carolyn Newbern will
recuse herself from the vote.
October 7, 2004
Andre Bernard noted for the record that Mr. Peters was present.
The applicant noted for the record that Beech abstract had given him good service before
and that he notified all that was on the list. He did not verify the names on the list to
double check
Boyd Maher stated that this was a good design, but was essentially an attempt to recreate
a historic structure. There is nothing wrong with that but the guidelines state it should
follow the general character of primary building. The dormers and vertical siding do not
reflect the principal structure. If the commission does want to approve this sort of thing
in the future, your revision of the guidelines should reflect that.
Wesley Walls made a comment on the dormer issue, that he thought it was to mitigate the
overall height of the structure, to keep the massing lower.
Marshall Peters asked Boyd Maher if vertical siding was used back in that period of time.
Boyd Maher that it was. They drew elements from other outbuildings in the area.
Marshall Peters states that it being substantially different from the house, it distinguishes
itself as an addition, not an old 1 structure.
Wesley Walls made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Marshall Peters
seconded. The motion was approved 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal from Carolyn Newbern.
October 7, 2004
ITEM #2: 601 South Rock Street MINUTE RECORD
STAFF REPORT (prepared by the housing department)
APPLICANT: Robert Fegtly and Don Terry
ADDRESS: 601 South Rock Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Install Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is
located west of 1-30, on the comer of Sixth and Rock Streets. The subject project's legal
description is North 3 feet of the South 15 feet of the East 50 feet Lot 2, Block 151, Original
City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Pulaski County.
The purpose and intent of this project is install signage.
There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration.
2.Signs
a.If historic (original or early to the district) should be preserved.
b.Which flash or rotate should not be used.
c.Should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially-
used residential building.
d.That are free standing may be used where necessary but should be low
and small and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish.
e.Attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small
identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between
posts, flush-mounted small signs on building wall, small projecting signs,
or as part of an awning.
f.Should not cover or obscure architectural features.
g.Of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or
commercially-used residential buildings.
h.Should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with
remote sources.
i.Should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper,
or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood.
J.Should be of a size proportionate to the building, not oversize.
k.Should utilize logos or symbols for businesses.
I.Should have no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate
with the building colors.
m.Should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and
October 7, 2004
letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60
percent of the total sign area.
n.For mounting on masonry walls should be anchored into the mortar, not
masonry.
o.Should otherwise comply with the Little Rock sign ordinance provisions.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were
no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The same applicant owns items two and three and the sign request are similar.
Discussion will for both applications will occur simultaneously, and separate vote counts
will relate to each item.
The applicant's made a brief presentation and indicated that they currently own four
buildings along 6th Street. They are all residential buildings used for a business and are
requesting two signs at two of the properties. They believe that these signs will help
identify their businesses.
Commissioner Newbern commented that the dimensions of the signs are well within the
guidelines specifications. She also added that they have done a good job with preserving
all of the different types of residential structures that they owned. She asked if they had
ever entertained the idea of making the surrounds and postings relate to the architecture
of corresponding buildings. The applicant responded, "No," and said that they would like
to be consistent with the other sign on their property. For the first business signage they
used an existing sign post and frame.
Commissioner Newbern had concerns about making the sign look better. The applicant
responded that they were open to "whatever" they (the Commission) felt and that they
initially thought the Commission would have accepted their design since the were using
an existing sign design in the area.
Commissioner Peters asked if this was the Harold King. The applicant clarified that
Harold is 411 East 6th Street. Additional conversation continued on homes on the street
and businesses in them.
October 7, 2004
The applicant noted that the sign on the property at 409 East 6th would be off to the side
of the house and angled towards the street. The applicant said the sign would be to the
west side, and just off of the parking lot.
Commissioner Newbern asked where they would put the one on Rock Street. The
applicant replied that most people access the area on 6th Street and would prefer it to be
visible from 6th Street. He further said it would be on the north side of the property and
single sided facing 6th Street. The applicant added that the sign would be on the east side
of Rock Street facing 6th Street.
Commissioner Newbern made comments on the sign placement referring to a map. The
applicant referred to a map and pointed out specific locations. Commissioner Newbern
had concerns about how the sign would look on Rock Street. The applicant said it may
not be easily visible. Commissioner Walls asked about the sign placement again. Again
the applicant stated that the sign would be angled toward East 6th Street.
Commissioner Newbern said if she owned the house she would like to make the front of
it look very nice. She indicated that she felt that the sign at an angle did not fit the
character of the house. She suggested that it be parallel to Rock Street and double sided.
The applicant responded by saying it would not be easily visible from 6th Street. The
Commissioners clarified their concerns of the angle of the sign.
The applicant said the Commission knows more about historical homes and is open to
suggestions of new placement.
Commissioner Weems said that maybe they should move the sign back to help screen an
air conditioner. The applicant also noted that they would be modeling the sign off of the
property at 521 Sixth Street. Commissioner Newbern said that would be nicer.
Additional discussion began regarding sign designs and hiding the air conditioner units.
Commissioner Newbern moved to approve the sign at 601 South Rock Street be approved
with the recommendation that it be placed close to the rear of the building on the 6th
Street side with proportions and placement so it will partially obscure the air conditioning
unit. Commissioner Walls seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Newburn began a motion for additional signage allowances. Deputy City
Attorney noted that the application was only for one sign. Commissioner Newbern
withdrew her motion.
Andre Bernard noted that any change in design needs to be presented to staff. Andre
summarized the previous vote and it was agreed that it was accurate.
The applicant clarified the proposed placement of the sign at 411 East 6th Street.
October 7, 2004
Commissioner Peters made a motion that the sign be approved for 411 East 6th Street as
submitted on the northwest comer of the lot as so submitted with keeping with the
guidelines, and properly obtaining all necessary permits. Commissioner Weems
seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
October 7, 2004
ITEM #3: 411 East Sixth Street MINUTE RECORD
APPLICANT: Robert Fegtly and Don Terry
ADDRESS: 411 East Sixth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Install Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is
located west ofl-30, on the south side of Sixth Street, between Rock and Sherman Streets.
The subject project's legal description is the North 10' lot 10, and lots 11 and 12, Block 151
original City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Pulaski County.
The purpose and intent of this project is install signage.
There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration.
3.Signs
a.If historic (original or early to the district) should be preserved.
b.Which flash or rotate should not be used.
c.Should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially-
used residential building.
d.That are free standing may be used where necessary but should be low
and small and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish.
e.Attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small
identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between
posts, flush-mounted small signs on building wall, small projecting signs,
or as part of an awning.
f.Should not cover or obscure architectural features.
g.Of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or
commercially-used residential buildings.
h.Should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with
remote sources.
i.Should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper,
or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood.
j.Should be of a size proportionate to the building, not oversize.
k.Should utilize logos or symbols for businesses.
I.Should have no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate
with the building colors.
m.Should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and
letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60
percent of the total sign area.
n.For mounting on masonry walls should be anchored into the mortar, not
October 7, 2004
masonry.
o.Should otherwise comply with the Little Rock sign ordinance provisions.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were
no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
This item was discussed in conjunction with item two. Please see Minute Summary for
item two for further discussion.
Please refer to the minutes of item two. Commissioner Peters made a motion that the
sign be approved for 411 East 6th Street as submitted on the northwest corner of the lot as
so submitted with keeping with the guidelines, and properly obtaining all necessary
permits. Commissioner Weems seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
October 7, 2004
ITEM #4: 507 East Eighth Street MINUTE RECORD
APPLICANT: Marshall Peters
ADDRESS: 507 East 8th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Construct two-story wood framed out building with a garage and
workshop below and guest quarters above.
PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is
located west of I-30, on the south side of Eighth Street, between Sherman and Commerce
Streets. The subject project's legal description is Johnson PT Blk 5 beg where S line E8th
Street crosses QP line E 97 ½' on North property line Block for Pob S Par 70 QP line 90' E.
The purpose and intent ofthis project is window removal-three (3) upper, one (1) lower
from the east rear side; one (1) lowers south (replaced with one removed upper) and four
(4)non operable from lower southwest comer (west side to be replaced by one (1)
removed from lower east side).
There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration.
4.Windows
a.Should be preserved in their original locations, size, and design and with
their original materials and numbers of panes.
b.Should not be added to primary facades or to secondary facades where
readily visible.
c.Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary
due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in-kind to match
the originals in material and design.
d.Should have snap-on or flush muntins.
e.Screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized
aluminum and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames.
f.Should not have shutters unless the building originally had them, the
shutters are of louvered wood construction, and the shutters will fit the
window opening (so that if closed, they would cover the window
opening).
g.Should not have security bars where visible from the street.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMP ACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were
no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project.
October 7, 2004
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Commissioner Peters was the applicant for this item. Commissioner Peters was excused
from the meeting.
Mr. Peters was presented the item to the Commission.
Commissioner Weems asked the applicant what was wrong with the windows. Mr. Peters
responded that they were bad, rotten. Mr. Peters noted that the windows on the southeast of
the building would be removed and moved to a location on the "west south" of the house to
be visible from the street. He also would like to replace windows that were covered up by
the siding and were on the rear of the house.
Commissioner Newbern clarified the application. Mr. Peters noted he should be back in the
future to request siding removal. Mr. Peters showed additional window plans to the
Commission.
Commissioner Newbern asked how the windows would relate to the street. Mr. Peters said
their "top line" would be the same. He added that they will be smaller windows such as the
window going up to the attic stair and the window in the pantry. He added that they would
be more historically correct.
Mr. Peters added that the opening is fourteen inches high and inoperable. He added that part
of this application was to remove those and put in a functional one over one window.
Mr. Peters noted that an addition on the rear of the house was done in 1964. He also noted
that he was not certain on the age of his house. It may be 1894, or 1896.
Commissioner Newbern asked additional questions. Mr. Peters clarified the application.
A discussion began on whether or not some of the windows were visible from the street.
Commissioner Newbern asked about the window design. She questioned on whether or not
the window should imitate the old or the new addition. Mr. Peters thanked her for pointing it
out. This would reinforce that the addition was a later nature.
Commissioner Bolden made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the
recommendation that the west first floor rear window on the west be designed to resemble
the multi-paned casement windows above it to reflect that the a new addition. Commissioner
Newbern Seconded. The motion carried, 4 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
III.New and Old Business
October 7, 2004
Discussion began regarding the upcoming Calendar for future meetings. Additional
conversation occurred regarding possible Commission conflicts with the Planning
Commission meetings.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.