HDC_11 05 2018Page 1 of 41
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
MINUTES
Monday, November 5, 2018, 5:00 p.m.
Human Resources Training Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Chair Ted Holder
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
Lauren Frederick
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Frances McSwain
Members Absent: Dale Pekar
City Attorney: Sherri Latimer
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Laura Sergeant Page Wilson
Ed Sergeant Jeff Horton
Ralph Wilcox William Wooten
Tommy Jameson Jim Engstrom
Approval of Minutes
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the October 8, 2018 minutes as
submitted. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar).
Brian Minyard, Staff, noted for the record that notice requirements were met on all of the items
except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a
newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested
citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online.
Page 2 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 1.
Location of the Leveck House
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 121 Normandy Road
FILE NUMBER: NR18-008
REQUEST: Nomination of the Leveck House to the Arkansas Register of Historic
Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 121 Normandy Road. The property’s legal description is “Lot
All Lot 110 & S ½ Lot 111 & the portion of reserved area adjacent to the property in the
rear & W 25’ of formerly platted Springdale Street lying E of & adjacent to the reserved
area, Normandy Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
Page 3 of 41
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Leveck House to the National
Register.
The nomination states: “The Leveck House at 121 Normandy Road in Little Rock, Pulaski
County, is an Art Moderne-style House built c.1943 for J. Donald and Ruth Leveck. The house
is roughly square in plan with a projecting garage to the northwest that faces Normandy Road.
The two-story house is constructed of concrete-block that has been stuccoed and rests on a
continuous concrete-block foundation. Some of the walls have been modified by the installation
of vinyl siding. The house is topped by a shallow pyramidal roof. The house is fenestrated by
bands of metal-framed casement windows, many of which wrap the house’s corners, along with
glass-block sidelights around the front door. The yard also contains a non-contributing
swimming pool.
“Overall, the Leveck House has good integrity from the time of its construction c.1943. The
largest change to the house, which precludes it from being listed on the National Register, is the
installation of the vinyl siding on parts of the house. Some of the interior layout and finished
have been changed, but the house still retains a number of its original Art Moderne features. In
addition, the setting around the house has not changed since the house was built – it is still
comprised of large homes on gracious lots on curvilinear streets. As a result, the Leveck House
is still able, for the most part, to convey its original design as a 1940s Art Moderne-style house.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the Arkansas Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked Ralph Wilcox of AHPP if
the siding was the only factor precluding it from being on the National Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Wilcox stated that the back has a different character with the siding as opposed to
the non-altered front. No citizens spoke on the item. Commissioner Frances McSwain made a
motion to recommend nomination to the Arkansas Register of Historic Places. Vice Chair
Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent
(Pekar).
Page 4 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 2
Location of the Ross Building
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 700 S Schiller
FILE NUMBER: NR18-009
REQUEST: Nomination of the Ross Building to the National Register of Historic
Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 700 S Schiller. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7, Block
12, Faust Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
Page 5 of 41
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Ross Building to the National
Register.
The nomination states: “The Ross Building, located at 700 S. Schiller, Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas, is a former grocery store, residential house, mattress factory, antique store,
and architectural firm. Constructed in 1895, the location of this building has made it part of the
ever-changing makeup of the heart of Little Rock as the surrounding area changed over time.1
As a grocery store, the property had ties with the German-American population in the city, when
its immediate neighbors was a dense collection of residences. Much of the working-class homes
and commercial storefronts are gone due to redevelopment and the influx of state-government
office buildings, leaving the Ross Building a notable structure at that area of the city. Changes
had threatened 700 Schiller’s existence with the development of an interstate highway, I-630,
that runs next to it. The Ross Building is a one-story brick and stone building with a basement in
the rear. The front is covered with a standard storefront flat roof. The rear addition, added in
1896-1897, has a hip roof. Among its exterior features, 700 Schiller features tall rounded
windows and high ceilings. The outside of the building has stayed relatively the same since
construction, but the interior has undergone significant changes due to evolving uses.
”The Ross Building, located at 700 South Schiller Street, is being nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A, with local significance, for its associations with
commercial history of Little Rock. This building operated as a grocery store owned by a
German-American immigrant, Charles E. Ross, from 1895 until 1930. During the 1920s, the
United States saw a rise in chain grocery stores that put an end to many privately owned stores,
including the Ross Building.2 In 1934, the building was used as a residential property with city
directories listing Robert Thornton, a blacksmith, and his wife as occupants.3 From 1935 to 1960
the property was again used as a place of business. Capitol Mattress Co. used the building to
renovate mattresses. The property is situated in what was the original path for Interstate 630;
however, several individuals were able to influence the path of road construction. Moise
Seligman, Jr., was one of those individuals and made 700 S. Schiller his home. He did some
renovation to the property during his stay at the house. The company, Polk, Stanley, Saunders
Ltd., used the building for office space for some time before it was sold again.
’This building is also being nominated under Criterion C, with local significance, as an
excellent example of a late 19th century commercial block. It is one of the last remaining
structures of this kind around the Arkansas State Capitol. As the area underwent a period of
major redevelopment, office buildings replaced commercial structures. The period of
significance, from 1895 to 1960, is inclusive of the launch of the grocery store to the closing of
the mattress factory.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C
1 Capitol Area Survey of 700 S. Schiller, Quapaw Quarter Association, 1978.
3 James M. Mayo, The American Grocery Store: The Business Evolution of an Architectural Space, Westport, CN:
Greenwood Press, 1993, 85.
3 Little Rock City Directories. Little Rock: R.L. Polk & Co. Publishers, 1934.
Page 6 of 41
is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked Ralph Wilcox of AHPP if
the windows on the front were original. Mr. Wilcox stated that if not, they replaced what was
there and they are in the original openings. No citizens spoke on the item. Vice Chair Jeremiah
Russell made a motion to recommend nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Amber Jones seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent (Pekar).
Page 7 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 3.
Location of Winchester Building
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 323 W 8th Street
FILE NUMBER: NR18-010
REQUEST: Nomination of the Winchester Auto Store to the National Register of
Historic Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 323 W 8th Street. The property’s legal description is “The
West 94' of Lots 1 & 2, and the North 32' Of Lot 3 Block 91, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
Page 8 of 41
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Winchester Auto Store to the
National Register.
The nomination states: “The Winchester Auto Store building is an Art-Moderne Style
commercial structure, located in the heart of the commercial core of downtown Little Rock at the
corner of 8th and Spring streets. It occupies 9,358 square feet on a parcel that also contains a
parking lot to the south. It was constructed in 1947 by Dennis E. and Maude M. Winchester as
the Winchester Auto Store. The building displays the characteristic features of the Art Moderne
style including low, long lines, a flat roof, a rounded corner entry, metal-framed casement
windows, and a curved flanking entry windows of glass blocks. The utilitarian interior space is
composed of large open areas with exposed interior concrete columns. The building was
constructed of typical materials of the period including brick, cut stone, precast concrete, steel
reinforced poured concrete, hollow clay tiles, and steel trusses.
“The Winchester Auto Store building meets the eligibility requirements for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, with local significance, as a rare surviving
example of an Art Moderne commercial building in Little Rock. Built in 1947, it retains most of
its original features that are reflective of the style. These features include low, horizontal lines
and curved elements, and the use of decorative curved canopies, glass blocks, precast
concrete, reinforced concrete, and steel trusses. Built by Dennis and Maude Winchester, it
marked the success of their Pre-WWII business in the auto parts and repair service and the
post-war burgeoning of the automobile industry, nationally and locally. The building remained in
the Winchester family until 2016 with few alterations or changes.
“The Winchester Auto Store building is being nominated to the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion C, with Local Significance, as an excellent and important example of
an automotive industry related Art Moderne commercial in the downtown core of Little Rock,
Arkansas. The period of significance of 1947 is inclusive of the year in which the building was
constructed.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that she is recusing
since she is doing the nomination and the tax credit work. Commissioner Frances McSwain
made a motion to recommend nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. No
citizens spoke on the item. Commissioner Frances McSwain made a motion to approve and
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1
recusal (Jones), and 1 absent (Pekar).
Page 9 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 4.
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 16 Broadview Drive
FILE NUMBER: NR18-011
REQUEST: Nomination of the Dr. Eugene Towbin House to the National Register of
Historic Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 16 Broadview Drive. The property’s legal description is “Lot 4,
Block 0 Broadview Replat Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
Location of Dr. Eugene Towbin House
Page 10 of 41
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Dr. Eugene Towbin House to
the National Register.
The nomination states” The Dr. Eugene Towbin House is being nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C for its Mid-Century Modern
style of architecture. Built in 1960, the Towbin House illustrates many characteristics of the Mid-
Century Modern style. Referred to as the Contemporary style in McAlester’s A Field Guide to
American Houses the Towbin House exhibits many of the characteristics of the style, including
wide overhangs, contrasting wall materials and textures, and unusual window shapes and
placements.
“Additionally, the Towbin House is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places
with statewide significance under Criterion B for its associations with Dr. Eugene Towbin. Dr.
Towbin, who lived in the house from the time of its construction in 1960 until his death in 2003,
was a national leader in the development of the study of geriatrics. Under the leadership of Dr.
Towbin, the Little Rock Veterans Administration Hospital established the first Geriatric Research
and Education Center in the United States in 1972. The work of Dr. Towbin and the
establishment of the Center brought about the medical specialty of geriatrics, and the founding
of other departments of geriatrics at other medical schools.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion B and C. Criterion B Is defined as: Property is associated with
the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item and mentioned that it was being nominated under criterion B
and C. Dr. Towbin was the first to specialize in geriatrics. Ralph Wilcox of AHPP clarified that
the [resent owner is his granddaughter. Vice Chair Russell asked if the interior was original.
Ralph Wilcox stated that there were a lot of original features in the house. No citizens spoke on
the item. Commissioner Frances McSwain made a motion to recommend nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar).
Page 11 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 5.
Location of the Gene Rush House
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 9515 Barrett Road
FILE NUMBER: NR18-012
REQUEST: Nomination of the Gene Rush House to the National Register of Historic
Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 9515 Barrett Road. The property’s legal description is “PART
S1/2 NW SE SECTION 5-2N-14 MPDA BEG SW COR S1/2 NW SE TH N01*45'45"E ALONG
THE WLN THEREOF 633.06' S89*00'E810.32' S0*23'56"E670.12' TO THE SLN S1/2 NW SE
(ALSO BEING THE NORTH R/W BARRETT ROAD) TH N86*29'02"W ALONG THE SLN AND
THE NORTH R/W BARRETT ROAD 835.61' TO THE POB, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
Page 12 of 41
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Gene Rush House to the
National Register.
The nomination states: “The design of the Gene Rush House is an excellent representation of
the shift in residential design that was occurring across the country after World War II. The
decorative pre-war revival styles, which were all the rage, were being pushed to the side by
more functional and livable residential designs. Although some people after World War II still
believed “that only shrunken colonial, Cape Cod ranches, or Cinderella homes properly
represent the American way of life…a trend [had] now begun working the other way. …[It was]
slowly becoming apparent to people that architects working with builders can give them better,
more thoughtful design for their money.”4
“Barn - Contributing
The barn is located approximately 350 feet to the northeast of the house, and is a wood frame
barn with a low-pitched, metal-clad roof that has a west-facing gable on the west half and a
north-south-facing gable on the east half. The west half of the barn consists of animal stalls and
a large set of double doors is located on the west façade.
“Aviary – Contributing
The aviary is located approximately 175 feet to the northeast of the house and is a small
octagonal structure. It rests on a continuous fieldstone foundation and the lower part of its walls
are sided in vertical boards in projecting frames. The sides are enclosed with glass panes and
the structure is topped by a pyramidal metal roof with flared eaves.
“Pond/Levee - Contributing
The pond is located to the east and south of the house and is a kidney-shaped man-made pond.
The levee that forms the pond runs along the east side of the pond and the property’s driveway
is located on top of the pond. A concrete spillway is located at the southwest corner of the pond
and it allows overflow from the pond to run into Nowlin Creek along the south edge of the
property. Etching in the concrete of the spillway says “Stonegate Bodie & Beverly Bodenhamer
10-5-07.”
“Stone Gates/Fence - Contributing
At the south end of the driveway at Barrett Road are four square fieldstone columns with flat
concrete caps that mark the entrance to the property. A wood fence is located in between the
columns and it also spans the property along Barrett Road. The wood fence consists of evenly-
spaced posts connected by four rows of flat horizontal boards.
“The Rush House clearly reflects the design trends that were impacting residential architecture
in the Mid-Century Modern style after World War II. The house lacks the applied ornamentation
that was so often used prior to World War II, and uses window placement and a variety of
materials to give visual interest and ornamentation. As McAlester and McAlester point out with
respect to the style, the Rush House has “no decorative detailing.” Furthermore, it “lack[s] the
stark white stucco wall surfaces, which are usually replaced by various combinations of wood,
brick, or stone.”5
4 Von Eckardt, Wolf. Mid-Century Architecture in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961, p. 21.
5 McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984, p. 482.
Page 13 of 41
“The design of the Rush House also reflects the increased relationship between the indoors and
outdoors, as well as the issue of privacy in house design. The design of the Rush House, with
its large windows and easy access to the large deck encouraged residents and visitors to
interact with the house’s surroundings. The placement of the large windows away from the
street also emphasized privacy for the house’s occupants from the street, even though the
house sits back a ways from Barrett Road. Since the Rush House is a good example of the
Mid-Century Modern style, it is being nominated to the National Register with local significance
under Criterion C.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item. He mentioned that there were accessory structures that are
contributing and included in the nomination. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to
recommend nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. No citizens spoke on the
item. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 absent (Pekar).
Page 14 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV 6.
DATE: November 5, 2018
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 217 Normandy Road
FILE NUMBER: NR18-013
REQUEST: Nomination of the Nolan Blass Jr House to the National Register of
Historic Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
Page 15 of 41
The subject property is located at 217 Normandy Road. The property’s legal description is
LOTS 95 & 96 & 97 except that part of 97 BEG AT THE NE cor of Lot 97 thence W along the N
boundary line of LOT 97 47' thence in a southerly direction 142' to S boundary line of lot 97 to a
pt 12' W of SE corner of said lot thence easterly along S line of said lot to the SE corner of said
lot thence northerly along the E line of said lot 141.4' to point of beg., Normandy addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Nolan Blass Jr House to the
National Register.
The nomination states: “The Noland Blass, Jr., House, which is located at 217 Normandy Road
in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, is a Mid-Century Modern house designed in 1952 by
noted Arkansas architect Noland Blass, Jr. The house rests on a cast-concrete foundation and
features walls of brick and vertical wood board. Much of the back of the house is glass, allowing
unobstructed views of the outside. The house is topped by a shallow side-facing gable roof
covered in asphalt shingles. The house is surrounded by lush landscaping and the backyard
features an in-ground pool, terrace, and pergola that also contribute to the nomination.
“POOL/PERGOLA – Contributing
To the southeast of the house is an irregularly-shaped in-ground swimming pool with a terrace
and brick walls that surround it. In addition, to the west of the pool is a curved wood pergola
with decorative wood screen on the west side. The pool was installed in 1965 during Blass’
residence in the house.
“The Blass House clearly reflects the design trends that were impacting residential architecture
in the Mid-Century Modern style after World War II. The house lacks the applied ornamentation
that was so often used prior to World War II, and uses window placement and a variety of
materials to give visual interest and ornamentation. As McAlester and McAlester point out with
respect to the style, the Blass House has “no decorative detailing.” Furthermore, it “lack[s] the
stark white stucco wall surfaces, which are usually replaced by various combinations of wood,
brick, or stone.”6
“The design of the Blass House also reflects the increased relationship between the indoors and
outdoors, as well as the issue of privacy in house design. The design of the Blass House, with
its large windows and easy access to the large back deck encouraged residents and visitors to
interact with the house’s surroundings. The placement of the large windows away from the
street also emphasized privacy for the house’s occupants from the street.
“Since the Blass House is a good example of the Mid-Century Modern style designed by noted
Arkansas architect Noland Blass, Jr., it is being nominated to the National Register with local
significance under Criterion C.”
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
6 McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984, p. 482.
Location of the Noland Blass Jr. House
Page 16 of 41
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Brian Minyard introduced the item and noted that this was his personal home that he designed.
Commissioner Frances McSwain made a motion to recommend nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. No citizens spoke on the item. Commissioner Frances McSwain
made a motion to approve. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar). Mr. Minyard stated that the complete
nominations are posted on the website and encouraged the audience to read them if they are
interested. Since there were six items this night, the Commission was trying to expedite the
meeting with shorter presentation.
Page 17 of 41
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: October 8, 2018
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1001 McMath Avenue
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-013
COA REQUEST: Exterior Siding
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001 McMath Avenue.
The property’s legal description is “Lot 12, Block 5,
Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
This mixed use building was completed in spring of 2016.
It is considered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of a court order in William
Page Wilson and Paul Page Dwellings, LLC v. Little Rock
Historic District Commission, case number 60CV-15-
4202. That order is at the end of this staff report. As per
the court’s order, Mr. Wilson has submitted a new
application to the Historic District Commission (HDC).
However, the only issue, as the application shows, is
review of the metal exterior siding that was installed
contrary to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
issued to Mr. Wilson.
The building currently has Hardieboard cement fiber board on the North and West sides of the
building. It has vertical metal siding on the East and South sides of the building. Mr. Wilson’s
application seeks Commission approval of the building’s exterior siding as it currently exists.
Judge Piazza’s Order mandates that “For purposes of the New Application, neither of the
parties shall be entitled to rely upon prior proceedings before the Commission, or the
proceedings before this Court.”
Location of Project
Page 18 of 41
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On March 10, 2014, a COA was issued to Paul Page Dwellings for a three story mixed use
building with HardiePlank exterior siding on all four sides with brick on a portion of the bottom
floor. A foundation only building permit was issued on February 5, 2015 with a full building
permit issued around April 1, 2015 based on that approved COA.
The applicant then filed for a COA to change the siding material to metal siding. That hearing
was held on August 8, 2015 and failed. That decision was appealed to court on September 9,
2015. In his order filed on October 4, 2017, Judge Piazza remanded the item to the HDC and
ordered Mr. Wilson to submit a new application. This item is the submission of that new
application.
Construction continued with Multi-Cor metal on the east and south sides and Hardi-Plank on the
north and west sides and, on approximately May 20, 2016, a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy was issued. This COA will be not evaluated under the new Construction of Primary
and Secondary Buildings standards since the building is finished and occupied. It will be
evaluated under Section III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES (December 2016 version):
This application is to seek approval of Multi-Cor Galvalume siding on the south and east side of
the building that was installed in opposition to the approved COA. Galvalume is a trade name
for steel siding that has a coating of 55%
Aluminum-Zinc alloy that is available in various
colors and profiles. The siding covers part of the
first floor above the brick and all of the second
and all of the third floors on the south and east
sides. The height above the ground for the Multi-
Cor varies from side to side and varies on each
side. The lowest is 4’-4” above the ground on the
south side and is up to 10’ on the west side. Most
of it is 8’-8” or 10’-0” above the ground at its
lowest points.
In reference to Little Rock Code § 23-120(d), the
August 10, 2015 Staff Report states on page 6:
The Architectural Style, General design, Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area,
Entrance area, Scale and Massing of the building was reviewed and approved in March
2014, fifteen months ago.
This statement above is still true. With this application, the only design factors that are pertinent
are Wall Areas and Façade. The definitions of wall area and façades according to Little Rock
Code § 23-77 are:
Wall areas means the vertical architectural member used to define and divide space including
the kind and texture and exposure of wall sidings and trims, and the location, number and
design of all window and door openings.
Facade means a face of a building.
This application is not seeking to change the location or number of any window or door
openings. This application only concerns the siding as it currently exists.
Existing south and west elevations
Page 19 of 41
(Note that all prior applications for COAs for this building were reviewed under the old guidelines
which were issued in July 2013. The application currently before the HDC will be reviewed
under the current MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New
Construction, issued December 2016.)
Since Section III, Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation in the current Guidelines primarily pertain
to the rehabilitation of historic buildings rather than the modification of newer buildings; it is
appropriate to first review the application in reference to Arkansas law and city ordinances. In
the sections below, the application will be reviewed based on state and local laws first.
The statute addressing the determination of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) states in
relevant part:
The Commission shall determine whether the proposed construction, reconstruction,
alteration, restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant
fixtures involved will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic district for the
purposes of this subchapter, or whether, notwithstanding that it may be inappropriate,
owing to conditions especially affecting the structure involved, but not affecting the
historic district generally, failure to issue a certificate of appropriateness will involve a
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant, and whether the certificate
may be issued without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial
derogation from the intent and purpose of this subchapter.
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-209(b)(3).
The building is located on the southeast corner of McMath Avenue and East 10th Street. The
siding on the building is Hardi-Plank on the north and west sides and Multi-Cor metal on the
east and south sides. The north side faces 10th Street and the west side faces McMath Avenue.
The south and east sides do not face the street but are still visible from the street.
It is Staff’s opinion that the issuance of a COA would be a substantial detriment to the public
welfare with the use of Multi-Cor Galvalume siding on a primary building. The National Register
Historic District (as well as the local Ordinance District) is named for MacArthur Park.
MacArthur Park was originally a Federal Arsenal and the Arsenal building was built and ready to
store munitions by 1840, one hundred and seventy-eight years ago. The thirty plus acres
associated with the Arsenal became the first park and was named City Park by 1890. This
building at 1001 McMath fronts onto the park and is visible from the Arsenal building. Of the 29
buildings that are in the park or face the park, 21 or 72% are contributing. The Arsenal building
shown in green on the map below is a National Historic Landmark, the highest level of historic
structures. To allow metal siding on a principal structure within view of the arsenal is not
preservation of the district as stated in state law.
The statute addressing a building’s interior features states:
In its deliberations under this subchapter, the historic district Commission shall not
consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action under this subchapter
except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration,
restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant fixtures in the
historic district obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district.
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-211.
Page 20 of 41
Contributing and Non-contributing map with buildings in blue and labeled with a C as contributing
It is Staff’s opinion that cladding a three story building that faces onto MacArthur Park is
obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The MacArthur Park National
Register Historic District has the earliest period of significance in the city starting in 1840. This is
earlier than the East Markham district by 30 years and the Governor’s Mansion district by 40
years. The McArthur Park district is comprised of mostly brick clad and wood clad buildings.
Metal siding was considered only for out buildings during the time of significance and usually
only for the façades that do not face the street.
City ordinance addresses exemptions to considerations for certificates of appropriateness:
Nothing in this division shall:
Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any
exterior architectural feature in the historic district, which is not visible from a public or
private street.
Little Rock Code § 23-116(2)
Page 21 of 41
Existing north elevation Existing south and west elevations
Existing north and east elevations Existing north and west elevation
This building is visible from a public street on all four façades as evidenced in the photos shown
above with the street in view on each photo. The north and west façades are covered with
Hardieboard cement board siding. The south and east façades, those currently covered in metal
siding, are visible from the street. The applicant proposes to construct buildings to the east and
south of the current building as shown on page 16 and labeled on the sheet as P3. Currently
there is nothing to the south of the building and a rain garden to its east.
The metal siding will always be visible from the street even if the proposed buildings are
constructed. To clarify, the document on page 16 was prepared as a part of a zoning action Z -
3218-A in 2014 to rezone the land from Urban Use (UU) to Planned Commercial Development
(PCD). That zoning category (PCD) is customized for each site and dictates what type of uses
(in this case residential and commercial); location, size, height, and setbacks of buildings;
parking; signage; etc. via an approved site plan that is part of the zoning process. The site will
be developed to that standard within allowances specified by the municipal code.
By constructing the first building at 1001 McMath, the zoning for this site is assured and will not
change. However, there is no requirement that any other building be constructed. No other
building is ever required be built on this site to maintain the current zoning. There is no
mandate by the city to have the owner or subsequent owners complete the other phases. So an
argument that the building will not be visible once the Phase 2 building is built to the south could
be misleading since the applicant is not required to build it.
Page 22 of 41
PCDs are revisable upon review of the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of
Directors. There is no guarantee that this plan will always be exactly as shown in this graphic.
In fact, the plan has not been followed thus far with the rain garden being installed directly to the
east of 1001 McMath in the footprint of where the Phase 4 building is supposed to be.
Additionally, in 2016, the applicant sought approval of two infill houses from the HDC contrary to
the approved PCD. This COA was withdrawn by the applicant.
If the buildings in Phase 2 and 4 (south and east of 1001 McMath) were built as specified by the
approved site plan, the south and east façades of 1001 McMath would still be visible from the
street. This ten foot separation between the buildings is the same ten foot separation between
neighboring houses when built to the five foot setback on each lot. It is easy to see the side
façades of houses and structures within the MacArthur Park Historic District and it will be easy
to see the south and east façades of 1001 McMath in the future even if additional buildings are
built on the site. A portion of the area between 1001 McMath and the proposed building to the
south is shown as an area for condensing units and could be screened in the future. However,
a six foot or shorter fence to screen air conditioner condensing units would not block the view of
the top of the first floor, or the second, or third floors. The metal siding would still be visible from
the street. The ten foot separation between 1001 McMath and the proposed building to the east
is shown as a walkway. Again, even if a gate or fence was approved and constructed at a later
date, a portion of the first floor and the second and third floor walls would still be visible from the
street.
The visibility of façades facing other structures can be evidenced by reviewing other such
buildings in the district. In the photos below, according to surveys in the files, there are a total of
10.5 + feet between 909 and 913 Cumberland. These are two story buildings with a 6’ privacy
fence between them. The photos were taken from the sidewalk. These photos demonstrate
that the sides of the structures are still visible with 10.5 feet of distance between them.
909 Cumberland Street on left 913 Cumberland Street on right
City ordinance addresses considerations the HDC cannot make when reviewing an application
for a COA:
In its deliberations under this article, the Commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition
Page 23 of 41
of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the
Commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district.
Little Rock Code § 23-119.
City ordinance addresses the criteria the HDC must consider when determining whether to
issue a COA:
In making its determination, the Commission shall consider without being limited to the
following criteria:
(a) Proposed repairs, alterations, new construction, moving or demolition in the
historic district shall respect and relate to the special character of the district. Changes
shall be evaluated on basis of:
(1) The purpose of this division.
(2) The architectural or historic value or significance of a building and its
relationship to the surrounding area.
(3) The general compatibility of proposed changes.
(4) Any other factor, including visual and aesthetic considered pertinent.
Little Rock Code § 23-120(a).
Staff believes that the use of Multi-Cor siding on this structure is incongruous with the historic
aspects of the district and do not relate to the special character of the district. As stated before,
materials with this profile have historically only been used on outbuildings placed in the rear
yards. Each national register historic district is unique with different architecture and periods of
significance. A period of significance is the time frame when most of the buildings were built or
when the area was at its’ peak. This national register historic district has the earliest period of
significance in the city starting in 1840. This is thirty years earlier than East Markham national
Register Historic District and forty years earliest than the Governor’s Mansion. This broad
expanse of the Multi-Cor siding, over 80’ long and three stories high, is considered not
compatible with the predominant brick or wood lap siding buildings in the district.
One might argue that the site of 1001 McMath and the applicant’s proposed buildings should be
treated differently from the rest of the district since it is located between I -30 and McMath
Avenue and thus is separated from the rest of the district. This supposition, however, is
incorrect. The fact is that the district was named for MacArthur Park. The district is that area
that surrounds the park on all four sides. Proposing that this area shou ld be reviewed under
different standards or criteria than other areas in the center of the district is not in compliance
with the governing legislation. This area, by state and city law, is to be reviewed under the
same standards as the rest of the district.
City ordinance addresses the criteria the HDC must consider when evaluating the
compatibility of changes to the exterior of a building:
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building
in the historic district, the Commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following
factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
Page 24 of 41
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
Little Rock Code § 23-120(d).
Building materials in the area of influence were inventoried and are as follows:
1007 McMath is a contributing structure wood frame house with horizontal wood siding
on all four sides and on the gable.
The building at 721 E 11th is non-contributing (Bylites). It is a combination of brick and
stucco. Some stucco may not be over existing brick, particularly on the westward facing
portions of the taller, older portion of the building.
Barrister Court Apartments at 1017 McGowan is non-contributing which has all brick
façades on all sides.
The two apartment buildings to the north at 718 and 720 E 10th are all brick with
mansard roof accent on the front façades only. They are non-contributing to the district.
The house at 923 McMath is contributing. It has aluminum horizontal lap siding. The
separate outbuilding behind has what the owner has described as “particle board siding”
which is a composite material of some sort.
The Pizza Hut at 913 McMath (which faces McGowan Street and the freeway) is a
combination of brick and vertical wood siding. The siding has vertical grooves in the
material every eight or ten inches. Instead of board and batten where the thinner width
battens are on the outside of the finished wall, this siding is similar to batten and board,
where the boards, not the battens, are on the outside of the wall.
Outside of the area of influence, the China Garden restaurant at 908 McGowan that was built as
a Waffle House is painted brick with flat panels of unknown material. The Shell gas station at
721 E 9th is painted brick. The Bowen Law School is brick with cut stone accents.
Little Rock Code § 23-120(d) instructs the HDC to consider materials in the area of influence
when considering Wall Areas. The definition of wall area includes wall siding and trim. Within
the area of influence, the primary building materials are brick and lap wood siding or a material
that mimics lap wood siding (923 McMath).
The cover letter states that “The vertical hill and valley profile mimic the board and batten seen
in District, usually a cementitious material, wooden board or a standing seam material. The
siding has a smooth finish, similar to cementitious building products like Hardie Board.”
Multi-Cor profile
Page 25 of 41
The Multicore Galvalume metal that has been
installed on the structure has a corrugated profile
in a rounded consistent curvilinear profile. See
graphic to the right. The width between the ridges
is 2.67” and the depth of the ridges is 0.875”.
Every two and two-thirds inches, the pattern
repeats. They rhythm of it would be regular and
constant. The board and batten profile is quite
different in proportions and scale. See graphic to
the right. Regionally, the wider material called
“boards” are typically a 1” by 12” or wider and the
thinner material called “battens” are typically a 1”
by 2” or a 1” by 4”. This means there is a repeat of
the pattern every twelve inches or greater. This is
an angular pattern consisting of right angles and
no curves. The scale of a pattern that repeats
itself every 2.67” versus 12” is not the same scale.
The rhythm of wide boards and the thin battens is
not the same as the Multi-Cor. If this was Morse
code, the Multi-Cor rhythm would be dot dot dot dot where the board and batten would be dot
dash dot dash. Multi-Cor does not closely resemble the proportions, nor the rhythm, nor the
scale of the board and batten siding. See images below of board and batten photographed in
the district. All of the photos have been enlarged and cropped to show an approximately 36”
wide photographic image.
Battens 10” on center Battens 12.25” on center Battens 12.25” on center Ridges 2.67” on center
On page 9 of the current guidelines under III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, it states:
Rehabilitation may include the following types of work:
Protection and maintenance of historic features that survive in generally good condition
Repair of historic materials and features that are deteriorated; patch, splice,
consolidate, or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation
methods whenever possible
Replacement of historic materials and features with new materials because
deterioration is so extensive that repair is not possible. New materials shall match the
old in design, texture, and other visual qualities. Replacement of missing features
should have historic documentation; if not available, interpretations of similar elements
in the area may be considered.
This paragraph does not apply to this application since the siding in question is not a historic
material.
Board and Batten profile
Page 26 of 41
On page 9 of the current guidelines under III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, it states:
Buildings, which are designated as “contributing” to a National Register Historic District,
or “significant” as a National Register Historic Landmark will be held to a higher standard
than “non-contributing” structures. The HDC will consider the designation when it
evaluates rehabilitation proposals.
This building is non-contributing to the district. While the above-referenced guideline statement
says that the contributing buildings will be held to a higher standard, it does not imply that
applications for non-contributing buildings be held to a lower standard than state and city laws
mandate.
This building can be reviewed against the Secretary of Interior Standards. The standards listed
in the Rehabilitation Standards on page 9 of the Guidelines are numbers 2 and 5.
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be
avoided.
#5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
However this is not a historic building, so these two do not relate as closely as they should.
Other Secretary of Interior Standards may apply to this situation better since this is a non-
historic building.
#3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
#9 New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such
a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The Secretary of the Interior Standards are attached as Appendix E in the current Guidelines.
The Guidelines state the following on page one:
Historic district guidelines are based on design principles and preservation standards
used by historic district Commission nationwide and on federal standards for
rehabilitation of historic buildings. In addition to explaining the philosophy and value of
historic preservation, these guidelines provide illustrations that note the architectural
styles and landscape features that are the character defining elements of the MacArthur
Park Historic District. These are, therefore, the elements that should be retained and
protected by the property owner. Solutions for rehabilitation and recommendations
regarding new construction are provided by these guidelines to help preserve the historic
character of the District and to allow change that is appropriate to the District’s historic
integrity.
Page 27 of 41
This building is clearly “of its time” as evidenced by the overall form of the building an d the
asymmetrical arrangement of windows and panels. The Hardi-Plank siding is also of its time
since it was invented in the late 20th century. The addition of the building in question to the
district does not destroy historic materials associated with the house at 1007 McMath, which is
on the same piece of property. The new building is differentiated from the old. If the building
under consideration was ever removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic portion of
the property, 1007 McMath, would be unimpaired.
In order to address issues that were raised due to the Applicants’ previous applications, the City
of Little Rock hired a consultant. That consultant will present their findings relevant to the
current application to the HDC. None of the consultant’s findings have ever been presented to
the HDC or to the circuit court in the course of litigation. Therefore, any information the
consultant presents to the HDC is neither part of any prior proceeding before the HDC or before
the court.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS:
In summary, Staff opposes the application because, as presented earlier, the application is in
opposition to state law and the city ordinance. The facades covered in Multi-Cor will always be
visible from the street even if additional buildings are constructed on the site. The use of Multi-
Cor panels is not a substitute for board and batten siding because of differing scale and rhythm
of the materials. When evaluated against the area of influence and the district as a whole, the
application is not appropriate. Staff believes that for the Multi-Cor siding to remain would not be
preservation of the district and is obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
On July 30, 2018, the applicant stated in an email that he would not have his notifications
mailed by the prescribed date. He has asked for a deferral. Staff recommends approval of a
deferral to the September 10, 2018 HDC hearing to allow for proper notice to be served.
COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2018
The Commission approved a motion made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by
Commissioner Rob Hodge to defer the item to the September HDC meeting. The motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Jones).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: September 10, 2018
Ted Holder, Chair, made the announcement that since there are only five Commissioners in
attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would
send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the
entire Commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the Commissioners
present. Page Wilson verbally stated that he wanted to defer. Commissioner Amber Jones
stated that she was going to recuse of her own choice on this item since she has upcoming
work with the applicant on a tax credit project. A motion to defer to the October 8, 2018 meeting
was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Dale Pekar. The
Page 28 of 41
motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recusal (Jones), and 2 absent (Frederick and
Hodge).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: October 8, 2018
Brian Minyard, Staff, made the announcement that since there are only five Commissioners in
attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would
send the notices. Mr. Page Wilson approached the microphone and stated that he would like to
defer. A motion to defer to the November 2018 meeting was made by Commissioner Lauren
Frederick and seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 5
ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Holder and Pekar).
Mr. Minyard stated that the meeting was on November 5th, the first Monday of the month
because of the Veteran’s Day observed conflict.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2018
Amber Jones stated that she would be recusing since she will be working with Mr. Wilson on
renovations to the yellow house at 1107 McMath. Chair Ted Holder made the announcement
that since there are only five Commissioners would be voting on the item with Commissioner
Dale Pekar absent and Commissioner Amber Jones recusing, the applicants could defer to the
next month’s meeting. Page Wilson stated that he wanted to go ahead with the hearing tonight.
He asked that if he continued with the hearing tonight, if he would have the option to defer in the
middle of the hearing like has been done in the past. Mr. Wilson stated he understood that he
had to have four or more positive votes. Mr. Wilson again asked if he could defer in the middle
of the hearing. Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, stated that the bylaws would have to be
waived. A majority of the Commission can waive the bylaws for a procedural item. There was
discussion on this type of deferral. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to go forward.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item following the staff report. Sherri Latimer
discussed how this was a new application and the order from the judge mandating that neither
party can rely upon prior proceedings before the Commission or the proceedings before the
court. Her reference was to paragraph 5 of the court’s order (filed October 4, 2017 and included
in the Staff report). She continued that the only item to be discussed was the siding. She
asked Mr. Wilson if that was correct. Page Wilson, applicant, stated that this was a new
application and did not see the litigation as suing the city. He stated that it was an
administrative appeal. He agreed that this application is for siding only.
Mr. Minyard stated that he had a letter from the Quapaw Quarter Association dated October 8,
2018. It states that they are not in support of the application. Vice Chair Russell stated that this
was not a negative recommendation from the QQA, but only from a committee thereof.
Commissioner Frances McSwain asked if the QQA Advocacy Committee report to the QQA
Board. Laura Sergeant stated that the advocacy committee did report to the Board and they did
not support the application. The advocacy committee has members of the Board on the
committee. They did have Mr. Wilson talk with the Advocacy Committee after October 8th. The
committee did not change their opinion. They believed it was inappropriate. Commissioner
Frances McSwain asked if the Advocacy Committee has submitted their report to the Board.
Page 29 of 41
There was a question if the Board accepts and confirms their opinions or just hears the opinion.
Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, stated that the City has a consultant, Jim Engstrom. Vice
Chair Jeremiah Russell asked why do we have the consultant and if this was in the prior
proceeding. Ms. Latimer stated that he did not testify in the prior proceeding or at the HDC.
There was a discussion on relying on previous decisions and Mr. Engstrom’s comments.
Jim Engstrom read a prepared letter on the durability of Hardiplank when installed properly into
the record. (Editor’s note: the Letter is attached at the end of these minutes.) He referred to
the attached sheet to the letter. He mentioned that he was on the State Building Code
committee.
Vice Chair Russell asked the difference between V,asd and V,ult. He asked about the
Galvalume and if it was analyzed. Mr. Engstrom stated he was not asked to look at that
material. Vice Chair Russell stated that the Commission is to look at other materials that are
superior for the district. Mr. Engstrom stated that it depends on the thickness and the
connections for both materials but had not prepared a report on the Galvalume. Ms. Latimer
stated that Mr. Engstrom’s directive was to show that Hardiplank will be sufficient for the wind.
Vice Chair Russell wants information on the wind load of Galvalume.
Commissioner McSwain verified that the Commission is looking at the south and east side of
the building only. She asked if Galvalume was installed because of the wind reason. The
answer was yes.
Chair Ted Holder said that the court order stated that they cannot rely on prior proceedings.
Records and facts are facts. They are true and can be used. There are four sides to the
buildings and the question is if two sides are appropriate or not. He stated that you cannot look
at the sides in isolation; you must look at the whole building.
It was noted that Vice Chair Russell was the only Commissioner at the previous hearing on
August 10, 2015.
Mr. Wilson said that Judge Piazza stated that the case was to be heard by the Commission as a
new application. It is a public meeting and anyone can speak at the hearing. He stated he did
not hire Mr. Engstrom; he was relying on what he heard Judge Piazza say to have a new
application.
Mr. Wilson stated that the three second horizontal test was for hurricanes. He referenced Texas
Florida, etc. for recent hurricanes and the hardiness of the materials. The real world
applications are different that the testing. He stated he filed the appeal on how the
Commissioners answered as to why they voted no and the materials. He was disappointed in
the Commission.
Chair Ted Holder stated the application is to approve what is there. Mr. Wilson stated that it is a
contemporary modern building. He believes he is consistent with Standard #3, 9 and 10 and
the guidelines. The primary facades are hardboard on the public sides.
Mr. Wilson recalled that the Commission had approved metal siding in previous applications on
the Hinson residence, The Dust Bowl, and the Paragon Building. (Editor’s note: The detached
garage on the Hinson application was metal. The Dust Bowl had an accent panel of corrugated
Page 30 of 41
metal approved by the committee but was installed as a flat panel. The Paragon building has a
sign that is made of flat metal and does not have metal siding.)
Mr. Wilson continued about the two single family structures that he had applied for. They had
Hardboard sides. He stated that at the Arkansas Arts Center, there will be new elements
introduced to the area. He wants to keep what he has now. He discussed the Secretary of the
Interiors Standards and how he felt that his project conformed to them.
He stated that the meeting with the QQA Advisory Board was a good meeting. And the vote
was three to three. He said that Cheri Nichols did not approve with the comparison of Board
and Batten to the multi-core. He questioned the validly of the advocacy committee letter. The
QQA did not refer to particular sections of the guidelines.
Vice Chair Russell did not have any questions of Mr. Wilson. Commissioner McSwain said she
may have questions later of him.
Jeff Horton, 1219 Spring Street, voiced support for the project. He stated as an archit ect, he
has used metal siding. It is a 21st century material. It has a 20 year no fade guarantee and 30
year for degrading. He thinks it is a good fit from a maintenance perspective. It is a recyclable
product.
Tommy Jameson, who is an architect in town, stated that he sat on the Commission 25 years
ago and had served on Capitol Zoning for 10 years. He has a history of supporting
contemporary infill. Corrugated siding is an industrial product and has been used for many
years. It has been used in this way in the last 20 years, is readily available, and used in areas
outside of the Historic District. It has allusions to board and batten and can go one way or the
other. If the application was 12 inch wide panel with a two inch batten, it would be a different
story. He thinks the additional vertical lines make no difference. The massing was already
approved. He urged them to look at the bigger picture in support of the applicant.
William Wooten, 1300 S Arch, lives in a metal house and it is maintenance free. He says it
looks the same after eight years for the most part. The house is located next to Mt Holly
Cemetery. He says that Hardiboard pops eventually and spoke in favor of the project. He would
like to see more of the material used.
Commissioner Hodge needed clarification on which portion of the guidelines were being used.
The staff report stated that it is being evaluated under the rehabilitation standards.
Vice Chair Russell asked staff to clarify what is meant on page 3 that the approval of this would
be a substantial detriment to the public welfare. Mr. Minyard stated that when people purchase
property in a local ordinance district, people expect the review to be applied to all property
owners. They are desirous of the older historic nature of the neighborhood and the
contemporary nature of certain buildings is distracting from that character. Other
neighborhoods are sought out for other reasons. – poa’s, design review committees, etc,. They
appreciate the reliability of what will be built next door. Vice Chair Russell asked if there was
anything other than anecdotal evidence of that. Mr. Minyard stated that there have been studies
across the country proving that property values are higher in local ordinance historic districts.
Vice Chair Russell asked if a study had been done on MacArthur Park. Mr. Minyard said no.
Vice Chair Russell read Page 5 of the staff report and believes it is irrelevant to this application
Page 31 of 41
or any other application. He does not agree with visibility argument. On Page 7 of the staff
report, he read that it had been used on accessory structures and wondered why staff was so
adamant on it not being appropriate on primary structures. Mr. Minyard replied to the question
stating that the Commission just approved metal on an outbuilding – a garage. He stated that
he had driven the MacArthur district and we have primarily brick buildings or wood clad
buildings. When you look at the state law and city ordinance, it speaks of the historic aspects
and special characteristics of the district. It mentions district in multiple places, and those
materials are brick or wood clad primary buildings and sometimes metal on accessory buildings
when looking at historic building materials (historic aspects). If you are looking at the historic
aspects of the district, this is not appropriate.
Vice Chair Russell asked what percentage of the buildings in the district is contributing. Mr.
Minyard stated it was in the high 70 percentile. He asked how many new infill would contribute
to the percentage. Mr. Minyard replied that none of them do. He asked how many new infill
projects would reduce that percentage. Mr. Minyard said that they would not. He then asked
how any new building could have a detrimental effect on the district on the preserved
percentage. Mr. Minyard said from a contributing percentage, it would not have a detrimental
effect but would go back to his previous answer on how this would be detrimental to the
neighborhood. Vice Chair Russell asserted that the district was preserved. He asked if Mr.
Minyard agreed. Mr. Minyard disagreed by saying that the Commission is to preserve the district
and that preservation never stops. Vice Chair Russell stipulated that if a new building was not
replacing a contributing building, it was not reducing the overall district and therefore preserving
our existing building stock. Mr. Minyard said he disagreed with one aspect of his statements.
The Commission is preserving the district by doing design review on all structures, whether
modification or additions to existing buildings whether they are contributing or not and new infill
buildings. The Commission is preserving the district by doing so but even with the fortunate
high level of contributing buildings, the Commission should still carefully weigh decisions if a
building is incongruous with the district as a whole as you look at the state law and city
ordinance. Staff does not believe that approving the metal siding is conforming to state law.
Vice Chair Russell believes that the Secretary of the Interior Standards are in that particular
order for a reason. He believes that this project adheres to the standards. Vice Chair Russell
read standard #3 and elaborated on it. Vice Chair Russell restated his argument on the
preserving the district and contributing and non-contributing percentages. He read part of the
staff report, the first complete paragraph on page 11 that starts “This building is clearly…” Vice
Chair Russell stated that he believes that the building is appropriate. Mr. Minyard restated the
city ordinance and state law mandates on compatibility. He spoke of the materials in the area of
influence.
Chair Holder stated that he disagreed with Vice Chair Russell. If you follow the train of thought
that Vice Chair Russell was proposing, an applicant could do anything they wanted. The state
and the city laws state that they are to preserve the historic district and the special character of
the district. Staff’s position is that this siding is not compatible with the district as a whole. We
allow infill buildings, but they always have to blend. If they do not, we would not have any
function. Chair Holder spoke of two houses that were proposed by the applicant that did not
blend because of the garage doors at the front. The guidelines are guidelines, not laws.
He continued about how Mr. Jameson talked of new materials can work in older areas. Chair
Holder has seen that work in other areas of the country. The setting is different; it is right on the
park. It is near the arsenal, and is subjective. Their job is to see if it blends not just next door
Page 32 of 41
but to blend with the whole district. The sides are starkly different. It is a very modern building
but the Hardiboard sides do not jar as much as the metal sides. Vice Chair Russell said he
agreed with everything if this was an application for new infill. He said that they are only
reviewing siding and if it was appropriate to that building.
Chair Holder said that the original COA was for Hardiboard all around. Ms. Latimer said that
they should not rely on previous actions. Chair Holder disputed the court order of not being able
to discuss facts of the recently approved COA.
Mr. Wilson said that when he departed from the Hardie Board is when he did the appeal. He
stated he had a meeting with Bruce Moore and Debra Weldon and Mr. Wilson’s attorney. Ms.
Latimer said that the meeting was not appropriate to discuss before the Commission. Chair
Holder stated that the Commission grants the COA and that staff cannot change them and was
not going to argue that fact. Chair Ted Holder said that he and Mr. Wilson will not agree that he
informed staff.
Commissioner Hodge stated that they were getting to close to relying on previous proceedings.
Commissioner McSwain wondered why was the siding was changed. Ms. Latimer said that it
was an understandable question but unable to pursue. Commissioner McSwain noted the
Secretary of Interior Standards was interesting to work with. She continued that part of staff
presentation in regards to the importance of the location of the project to the 1840’s arsenal and
the basis of the district. Is the question if this mimics board and batten? Is that what we are
figuring out? She is not familiar with metal.
Chair Holder stated that the Wooten House is nice in relation to where it is, based on the
location. He believes that this is too important of a location to approve the metal siding.
Mr. Horton spoke about different material on different sides. In the Governor’s Mansion area,
Danny Cook’s house at 17th and Louisiana has different color brick on the different sides. Mr.
Minyard reminded the Commission that they are reviewing the building with its relation to the
MacArthur Park National Register Historic District, not the Governor’s Mansion district.
Mr. Wooten stated that he did not believe it was detrimental to the MacArthur Park District and
mentioned the Quapaw Towers. (Editor’s note: The Quapaw Towers is not in the District.) The
Arts Center will change dramatically with the new renovations.
Commissioner Frederick asked if the Commissioners had all of the information needed to vote.
Mr. Wilson asked if the question was over the color. Chair Holder said it was not the color, it is
the material. He does not believe that it should be used in MacArthur Park.
Mr. Wilson referenced 1418 Rock Street which has all vertical galvalume siding. Mr. Minyard
noted that it was in the 1400 block of Rock Street. (Editor’s note: The house has horizontal
wood siding on the front of the structure and is not 10% galvalume.)
Mr. Wilson referenced the former guidelines, talk about building materials on major surfaces and
it did not differentiate wall versus roofs. There was a discussion of other commercial buildings
in the area.
Page 33 of 41
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve as installed. Commissioner Frederick seconded.
The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Holder), 1 absent (Pekar) and 1 recusal (Jones)
Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the
application. Commissioner Hodge said that he was swayed by Staff report. He does believe
that the siding is vastly different from board and batten. The area of influence was a deciding
factor. It is across form the park. He continued that it were not on the road with the Pizza Hut,
he would have felt different.
Commissioner McSwain is all for infill. She believes that it will stand the test of time. Should
look at material in committees.
Commissioner Frederick stated that if you go to other urban areas, they include metal in historic
areas.
Vice Chair Russell said it was a victory for the guidelines and the period of significance. These
homes were modern when they were built. 50 years later he hopes they will cherish those too.
Chair Holder stated earlier why he voted as he did.
Page 34 of 41
Judge’s Order page one
Page 35 of 41
Judges Order page two
Page 36 of 41
James Engstrom exhibit page 1
Page 37 of 41
James Engstrom exhibit page 2
Page 38 of 41
James Engstrom exhibit page 3
Page 39 of 41
James Engstrom exhibit page 4
Page 40 of 41
James Engstrom exhibit page 5
Other Matters
A discussion to have a break was dismissed. Commissioner Amber Jones rejoined the
meeting.
Calendar
The 2019 Calendar was presented noting that the November meeting has been moved to the
first week. A motion was made by Commissioner Lauren Frederick to approve as submitted.
Vice Chair Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent
(Pekar).
Enforcement issues
The sign at 700 Rock Street for Midtown Realty will either come down or he will file for a COA.
The fence at 400 E Capitol Avenue is still under enforcement.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier - 1015 Rock Street for a rear yard
fence, 601 Rock Street for porch and front door repair, 619 Rock for soffit, fascia, roofing repair,
and tuckpointing.
Staff encouraged the Commission to drive by 1414 Park Lane and 1419 Commerce Street.
Housing and Neighborhood Programs will be filing applications for demolition of those structures
on the next agenda.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:15 p.m.
Attest,
Chair Date
Secretary /Staff Date
Page 41 of 41