HDC_12 10 2018Page 1 of 29
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, December 10, 2018, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Chair Ted Holder
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
Dale Pekar
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Frances McSwain
Members Absent: Lauren Frederick
City Attorney: Sherri Latimer
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Ed Garland
Citizens Present: Randy Mourning Gabe Holstrum
Lindsey Boerner Denise Arnett
Patricia Blick Cleveland Thomas
Charlsetta Harville Page Wilson
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.
A motion was made to amend the order of the agenda to move items 1, 5, and 6 to the
beginning and to add the election of officers to the end of the agenda. The motion was made by
Commissioner Robert Hodge and was seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). Applicants for items 1, 5 and 6
did not provide proper notice. Those items were voted on in a group and they were deferred to
the January 14, 2019 hearing. See individual staff reports for vote counts.
Page 2 of 29
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: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: James Moses, Newmark Moses Tucker Partners
ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-021
COA REQUEST: Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss
Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: “Some
Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick
detailing.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to
the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action. This
item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue east
of the apartment building.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 12, 2016, a COA to allow the existing
fence to remain was denied by the HDC. There has been
no change to the fence since that application.
On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construction of a
duplex at 507 Rock Street that included a three foot tall fence in that location.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 29
Capitol Avenue fence view from east Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines on pages 58-60 state that fences on street frontage and front yard should be 36”
tall. This fence in question has street frontage along Capitol Ave.
The staff report of May 11, 2015 for the original application stated that the fence along Capitol
Avenue was to be thirty-six inches tall. Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application,
stated that the fence on Capitol Avenue was planned to be thirty-six inches tall. The parking lot
adjacent to the fence was to be expanded and reconfigured with automatic gates to secure the
parking lot. However, the project plans changed. The duplex was not built and a swimming
pool was built in its place. The parking lot was not expanded either.
In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is
labeled “6’ Fence”. Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled
“3’ Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence depicted in blue in the
photos. It is immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building.
The six foot fence does not
provide any additional security
to the parked cars, to the air
conditioning units located to the
east of the building, or to the
property in general. The cars
are parked in a non-secured
parking lot that has the alley
functioning as the aisle. There
is not a fence on the south side
of the property to separate this
rear yard from the neighboring
property or the alley. It is
possible to enter the area
without going through any gates Aerial view of parking lot
Page 4 of 29
or over any fence. The fence was approved at the thirty-six inch height but was installed at the
six foot height.
Quote from minutes of December 12, 2016 “Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an
oversight on their part that the fence was installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to
allow them to keep the fence.
“Chair BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had
been installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required.
Jimmy Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that
it is not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but
that the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there
was a variety of fences and does not believe that this fence is out of character.”
Trapnall Hall is owned by the State of Arkansas and is not subject to the review of the Historic
District Commission. A courtesy presentation was made to the HDC on February 11, 2013
concerning the installation of the fence at Trapnall Hall’s parking lot directly across the alley
from this application.
In summary, this fence was installed contrary to the approved COA. This fence does not
provide any physical deterrent from foot traffic entering the site. This fence does not provide any
additional security to the cars parked off the alley. This fence does not totally enclose the
parking. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land that
would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion
was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
View of 401 E Capitol from the southeast
showing no fence on south property line.
View of two fences from the east showing
height difference.
Page 5 of 29
and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent (Frederick).
Page 6 of 29
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. Two.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs
ADDRESS: 1419 S Commerce
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-030
COA REQUEST: Demolition
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1419 S Commerce.
The property’s legal description is “Lot 5, Block 157,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built c 1886. The 2006
survey form states: “This simple early Colonial Revival
style structure with asymmetrical front and porch between
front and side wing. Front porch has been rebuilt.
Typical bay window and window shutters reflect style of
the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for Demolition of the structure.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On October 27, 1998, a COC was approved and issued
to Thomas Inner City for maintenance on the outside and
interior rehab.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing
buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall
character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition.
The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the dist rict should be
reviewed carefully.
Location of Project
Page 7 of 29
The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the
Commission.
The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last
twenty years. The current owner has owned the building since 1998. A building permit was
issued in 2001 for rehab, which expired with no inspections or approvals issued. On or about
September 9, 2005, a stop work order was issued for installation of new windows and siding
without HDC approval or building permits. A permit was issued for rehab on March 29, 2006 for
maintenance but expired with no inspections or approvals issued. It is unsure if the work was
started on the 2006 permit. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the
Unsafe and Vacant list since January 24, 2012.
The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be
demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of
the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the
structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternat ive that will be
discussed farther along in the report.
All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how
much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been
issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a
building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued
a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits
issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000.
The property at 1419 Commerce is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park
Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be
available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the
property was income producing.
The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of
Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value
and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner.
1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 8 of 29
The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its
architectural integrity although it is in need of repair.
The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the
home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. The first would be
the sale of the property to another individual. The property has been redeemed for back taxes in
2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and again in 2018. At the sale in early 2018, there was a bid on the
property of $7,400. That sale was not completed since the owner redeemed the property by
paying the back taxes and fees of $2,791. The bid of $7,400 proves that a private individual
was interested in the property enough to win the bid on the property.
This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the
appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may or may not remove any
existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new
owner to occupy the structure for their personal use.
Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three
new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this
property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and
improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a
new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new
house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data.
If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $5,500
for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill
charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed.
Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income
tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can
be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate
area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove
that there is a market for housing in this area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission.
Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the
item. He stated there was $423 in outstanding liens on the property now. They have been
unsuccessful in obtaining a response from the current owners. It has been on the Unsafe
Vacant UV list since 2012. Appearing in front of the HDC is the first step in the demolition
process. He spoke of the alternative processes available. If the owner has intent to rehab the
structure, the owner needs to meet with the Director of the Housing Department and provide a
detailed scope of work and a timeline on when the work will be completed. They will need to
Page 9 of 29
have proof of financial capacity to finish the project. A 90 day “bring to code” building permit is
issued and Staff follows up after 90 days to see how much work has been done. The Housing
department may extend the “bring to code” permit for additional 90 day periods. Chair Ted
Holder asked if this was a finish in 90 days or just to start in 90 days permit. Mr. Garland said it
was to make progress on the rehab. He also stated that they take lots of photos during the
project to document the building activities.
Cleveland Thomas, the owner of the house, said that the tornado of 1999 tore up the house. He
has had some hardship rehabbing the house. The loves the structure and does not want it to be
torn down. People have wanted to buy the house in the past, but the buyer fell through.
Regions Bank has approved a $95,000 loan on the house but he had not found a contractor to
do it for that price. He does not have any additional money to put towards the renovation of the
house. He obtained a letter from a person that was willing to buy the house. He said he would
sell the house.
Chair Ted Holder asked if he considered donating it t o the City Land Bank. Mr. Thomas replied
that he wanted the house rehabbed and that he has had trouble with homeless people. Chair
Holder reiterated that Mr. Thomas would like to rehab but does not have a contractor. He
continued and asked what would happen if the time expires and he cannot sell it, it could be
torn down.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked why he had not put up a for sale sign on the property. Mr.
Thomas said that he has in the past but it was taken down.
Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the
November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She
quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be
explored before the house is demolished. She shared a metaphor of a quilt where certain
pieces were missing where the quilt is the neighborhood and individual houses were pieces of
the quilt. The quilt and the neighborhood cannot stay together if there are too many m issing
pieces.
Gabe Holstrum, 2102 Louisiana, stated that he was the person that was the $7400 bidder at the
tax sale. He is interested in buying it if it is to be sold. He continued that three buyers in the
audience should encourage the owner to sell.
Lindsey Boerner, 401 E Daisy Bates, asked the commission to defer the application in order to
allow rehab of the structure to occur. She did not want it torn down and welcomes the
opportunity for a new family to move into the neighborhood.
Mr. Minyard stated that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the
owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the
rehabilitation process. Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to defer with Staff conditions.
Commissioner Frances McSwain seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent (Frederick).
Page 10 of 29
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. Three.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs
ADDRESS: 1414 Park Lane
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-031
COA REQUEST: Demolition
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1414 Park Lane. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 157, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built c 1907. The 2000
survey form states: “Typical Colonial Revival cottage for
the area.” It also states “After her husband’s death, this
was the home of Mrs. Regina (John A.) Schmelzer. She
and her husband had lived at 1123 Rock S. Rock.” It is
considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur
Park Historic District.
This application is for Demolition.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On November 2, 2000, a COA was approved and issued
to Pastor C. Harville and Wali Caradine for exterior
renovations.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing
buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall
character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition.
The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the district should be
reviewed carefully.
Location of Project
Page 11 of 29
The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the
Commission.
The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last
twenty three years. On August 30, 1995, the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning -
Housing Programs, sent a letter to the then owner, George Pike Jr, stating that an inspection
had been made of the house and it was found to be “unsafe, unfit for human inhabitation,
offensive to the neighborhood, and it is dangerous to persons in the vicinity or lawfully passing
by the structure.” On March 27, 1996, the property changed hands to Lighthouse Inc. and they
have owned it ever since.
Multiple permits were issued on the structure from 2001 – 2005. From June 2000 – February
2001, permits for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $17,200 to bring
the structure to code. Most of these permits expired without completion. In mid-2003, permits
were issued for building and electrical work were issued for $20,000 to bring to code and they
expired without completing the work. From August 2004 – September 2005, permits for building,
electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $24,900 to bring the structure to code.
Most of these permits expired without completion.
Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since
2013.
The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be
demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of
the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the
structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternative that will be
discussed farther along in the report.
All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how
much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been
issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a
building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued
1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 12 of 29
a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits
issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000.
The property at 1414 Park Lane is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic
District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available
for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property
was income producing.
The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of
Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value
and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner.
The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its
architectural integrity although it is in need of repair.
The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the
home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. They are as listed
below. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property was
redeemed for back taxes in 1999.
This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the
appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may remove any existing liens
from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to
occupy the structure for their personal use.
Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three
new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this
property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and
improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a
new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new
house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data.
If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $6,200
for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill
charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed.
Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income
tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can
be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate
area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove
that there is a market for housing in this area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming.
Page 13 of 29
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the owner was in
the audience and that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the
owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the
rehabilitation process.
Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the
item. He stated there was $704.32 in outstanding liens on the property now. If the house was
sold to a new owner with plans of a complete renovation, they may contact the Director of
Housing and Neighborhood Programs to discuss options on the outstanding liens.
Commissioner Frances McSwain said she drove by both of them today and asked how much of
it had been destroyed by fire. Mr. Garland said he did not know exactly how much. They had
an estimate from 2013 for the renovation expenses and would want to get a contractor opinion
on what it would cost for a total rehab on the house.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property goes back to the City, if the liens could be
forgiven. Mr. Garland said that each case is different and that liens can be forgiven. Liens are
against the property, not the property owner.
Charlsetta Harville, the owner of the property, stated that she was the president of the
Lighthouse Center CDC. She stated that she has spent more than $70,000 on the rehab of the
house to date. She spoke of vandalism and stolen pipes and materials form the house. She is
aware of the fire damage. A contractor she had to look at the house recommended that it be
torn down. She will go with what the HDC recommends for her to do. She would consider
selling the house or building a new one in its place if the old one was demolished.
Chair Ted Holder asked if she had a preference to sell or rehab. Ms. Harville stated that she
would rather sell than to rehab.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked her if she was aware of the potential of $10,000 in liens of
the city demolished her house. Ms. Harville stated that the Lighthouse Center had donated lots
to the Downtown CDC before and the house is more than she can take on. She continued that
she thought she could get it demolished for less money than that. Vice Chair Russell said that
the application for demolition was the city’s application not hers. If she was to demolish it, she
would need to reapply for the demolition herself and go through this process again.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property is for sale now. Ms. Harville said it was not but
she would be willing to consider selling it. Vice Chair Russell asked her if a six month deferral
was approved, would she agree to list the house for sale. She replied yes.
Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if she had ever listed it for sale before. She said that she
had not. She used to keep insurance on it, but does not anymore.
Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the
November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She
quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be
explored before the house is demolished. She said that there were lots of photos of the house
before that would aid in the renovation of the Schmelzer House.
Page 14 of 29
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the item for six months with the condition
that the property be listed for sale within one month. The motion was seconded and the motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
.
Page 15 of 29
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. Four.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Shawn Govind, 315ONSixth LLC
ADDRESS: 315 E 6th Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-033
COA REQUEST: Awning and Lights
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 315 East 6th Street.
The property’s legal description is the” west 65’ of lots 10,
11 and 12 of Block 41, Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The building is known as the Peachtree Apartments and
is a circa 1920’s building with painted brick. The 1988
Survey considers it a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for replacement of the Awning with a
different style and material and adding lights near the
front door. A letter of support from AHPP is included near
the end of the staff report.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 10, 2007, a COA was approved and
issued to The Rep Theatre for replacing all windows, removing window ac units and installing
mini-split ac units on the roof.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposed awning is an aluminum canopy with an extruded fascia/gutter and a flat roof deck.
The support tubes that extend from the canopy to the wall are 1.5” square tubes and the plates
on the wall would be 8” square. The fascia, support tubes and wall plates are to be in a bronze
color. The overall size would be 11’ wide and 4’ projection from the building.
Location of Project
Page 16 of 29
The guidelines state that “Awnings may be
added to commercial buildings if physical or
pictorial evidence exists. Awnings should
be of traditional design, materials, and
placement. Canvas, acrylic, or vinyl coated
materials are preferable to fixed metal or
wood awnings.” The flat awning is a
departure from the shed (angled) awning
that is currently on the building. However,
the lines of this awning blends with the
architecture of the building. The proper
location to install the awning would be to
match the division line above the front door
and below the glass block windows. The
style of this awning is appropriate to the
Existing north elevation 2007 photo of building
Entrance Detail Contributing and Non-contributing map
Awning
Page 17 of 29
building.
The proposed light fixture
is from Maxim lighting and
is a 30” tall fixture in
bronze finish. These
fixtures would be mounted
on both sides of the front
entry. The application did
not state how high on the
façade that they would be
mounted. The Guidelines
state that “if historic light
fixtures do not exist or
require replacement,
concealed light fixtures,
fixtures of a simple design,
or fixtures appropriate to
the period of the building
should be used”. There is
currently a fixture under the
existing canopy. These
would be in addition to that
lighting. AHPP believes
that this is the original fixture. The style of the proposed fixtures are appropriate with the c.
1920 building. However, utilizing the existing light over the entry area would comply with the
guidelines more closely. The letter from AHPP concerning the conservation easement dated
November 8, 2018 does not include the light fixtures.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
2. Retain the existing light fixture over the door and do not install the proposed “Maxim”
light fixtures.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He stated that the application
had changed and the lights on the side of the building were removed from the project, bollards
were added, and that the existing light under the canopy would be cleaned and repaired. The
awning continues to be in the project. He stated that there is an additional letter from AHPP
concerning the Conservation Easement that supports the bollards. A cutsheet of the bollards
was handed out to the Commission in the agenda meeting. He continued that the applicant
would need to amend his application verbally in the hearing.
Mr. Shawn Govind introduced himself to the Commission and Chair Ted Holder asked him if he
was officially amending his application for the addition of the bollards and deletion of the wall
Existing light over entry. Light
Page 18 of 29
lights. He stated yes that he was. Chair Holder then asked him how many bollards were
proposed. He answered that there would be two on each side for a total of four.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked about the specification of the lights in the bollards. He quoted
the specification sheet that said it was a warm white light but questioned the 5700K color
temperature. Mr. Govind stated that the intention was to have a warm colored light in the
bollard.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked if there was a division line and existing canopy between the
glass block and the doorway and if the awning was going to be installed there. Mr. Govind
stated that it would be.
Back on the bollards, Mr. Govind stated that he picked out the bollard for their style and
definitely wants to go with an incandescent type light.
There were no citizens that spoke on the item.
A motion was made to approve this item as amended by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was
seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent (Frederick). Commissioner Hodge stated he voted for the item because it adhered
to the guidelines and that it was a benefit to the neighborhood, Commissioners Jones, Pekar,
McSwain, and Chair Holder voted for it because it was within the guidelines. Vice Chair Russell
stated that the awning was complementary to the style of the building.
Page 19 of 29
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. Five.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Randy Mourning, Angel Properties LLC
ADDRESS: 1002 Cumberland, 215-221 E 10th Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-034
COA REQUEST: Fencing
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of this item due to improper notice being made to the property
owners in the area of influence.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion
was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent (Frederick).
Page 20 of 29
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. Six.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Jamie Taylor, Bluebird Realty
ADDRESS: 409 E 6th Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-035
COA REQUEST: Sign
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 409 E 6th Street. The
property’s legal description is “East 50’ of Lot 1 and the
North 35’ of the East 50’ of Lot 2, Block 151, Original City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built c 1907. The 2006
survey form states: “A National Register Property similar
to adjacent Thompson designed home. Large ionic
(paried) columns and decorative dormer with Palladian
window provides decoration.” It is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
This application is for a Sign to be mounted on the same
apparatus as the previous sign. It is the same size and
shape.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On November 25, 2018, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for the replacement of
concrete steps.
On October 3, 2017, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a new roof.
On January 20, 2016, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for a new sign.
On June 23, 2014, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a repair work due to storm.
On March 4, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for fence enclosures around air
conditioning units.
Location of Project
Page 21 of 29
Proposed sign Previous approved sign
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is to replace the existing sign for
DDF and replace with another sign of the same
size, shape, and materials for the new tenant,
Bluebird Realty. The sign is a 1/8’ aluminum plate
cut to shape. The address oval is 3/16” aluminum
plate bonded to the background. The text,
background color and logo are printed on high
performance vinyl and mounted to the plates.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION:
At the time of distribution, there were no comments
regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the
following conditions:
3. Obtaining a sign permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion
was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent (Frederick).
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 22 of 29
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. Seven.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Frances McSwain
ADDRESS: 407 E 10th street
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-036
COA REQUEST: Storage building
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 407 E 10th Street. The
property’s legal description is a long legal but can be
described as Part of the East 75’ of Lots 1 and 2, Block
58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This single family cottage was built in 1853. The 2006
survey form states: “This one story hall and parlor Folk
style house has the typical gabled wing to the rear for
added space. Some colonial revival elements, such as
the decorated entry are apparent.” “George Kadel built
this house on one of three lots he bought in 1852. Porch
was removed and building was moved several feet when
remodeling occurred.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for the addition of a Storage building to
be located in the rear of the property with board and
batten siding and a corrugated metal roof.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On September 28, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Vernon Carey for a fence in the
rear yard.
On April 3, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to Richard Butler for the renovation of the
structure.
Location of Project
Page 23 of 29
Proposed north elevation Contributing and Non-contributing
map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposal is to add a storage shed to the rear of the property adjacent to the alley. The
footprint will be a 10’ x 12’. It will feature a gable roof with the gable facing 10 th Street. The
siding will be a fiber cement product such as Hardie Board. The battens will be installed ten
inch on center. The height of the roof will be 9’ at the ridge sloping down to 7’6”. The roof will
be corrugated metal. There will be a three foot overhang on the front or west side and the
other sides will have a one foot overhang. On the west side, there will be a door and a window.
The west side will not be visible from the street. The building will be electrified. The shed will
be painted to match the house. The six foot wood privacy fence will be partially removed and
relocated as this storage shed will function as part of the fencing strategy.
On siting of the structure, the placement at the rear corner of the lot off the alley is an
appropriate location. The overall height of the structure at nine feet is appropriate and
subordinate to the house. The proportions of the structure are appropriate. The rhythm of the
elements of the building is appropriate for a storage shed, one façade with a door and window
and the other facades without. The scale of the building is subordinate to the size of the house
and is in keeping with other storage buildings in the district. The massing with the porch to the
west is traditional for out buildings in the area. Porches were often on the non-alley side of the
building. The entrance area of the building will not be visible from the street. The wall areas will
have the appearance of board and battens with the battens ten inches on center. Previously,
Staff inventoried board and batten structures in the district. Staff found that the battens were
placed twelve inches on center a majority of the times but did find one example with ten inches
on center. Board and batten siding is an appropriate siding choice for the district. Detailing will
be simple.
SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING
The applicant attended the November 26, 2018 pre application hearing. The comments from
the commissioners are summarized as follows:
SITING – no issues.
HEIGHT – no issues.
Page 24 of 29
PROPORTION – no issues.
RHYTHM – no issues.
SCALE – no issues.
MASSING – roof form / mass is not typical. Consider traditional gable facing 10th Street.
Consider matching roof slopes.
ENTRANCE AREA – no issues.
WALL AREAS – are materials compatible – wood and hardie plank
ROOF AREA – roof is not typical.
FAÇADE – Board and batten is typical for the neighborhood – however, house is horizontal
siding. Consider matching house.
DETAILING– no issues.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
4. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
Commissioner Frances McSwain stated for the record that she was recusing from this item
because it was her personal residence. She also stated that she was authorizing Patricia Blick
to represent her on the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar stated that he was recusing from the
item since he is in the area of influence. Both commissioners left the hearing room.
West façade not visible from street Location of storage shed
Page 25 of 29
Patricia Blick, 1702 N Palm, stated that she would be representing the applicant on this item.
She stated that the design of the shed met the eleven design factors in the guidelines and that
board and batten siding is typical for out buildings in the area.
A motion was made to approve this item as submitted by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was
seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent (Frederick), and 2 recusals (McSwain and Pekar). Chair Holder and Commissioner
Hodge voted for the item because it adhered to the guidelines, Commissioner Jones stated that
it adhered to the Guidelines as an accessory structure and Vice Chair Russell sated it
conformed to the eleven design factors.
Page 26 of 29
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. Eight.
DATE: December 10, 2018
APPLICANT: Frances McSwain
ADDRESS: 407 E 10th Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC18-037
COA REQUEST: Storm Windows
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 407 E 10th Street. The
property’s legal description is a long legal but can be
described as Part of the East 75’ of Lots 1 and 2, Block
58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This single family cottage was built in 1853. The 2006
survey form states: “This one story hall and parlor Folk
style house has the typical gabled wing to the rear for
added space. Some colonial revival elements, such as
the decorated entry are apparent.” “George Kadel built
this house on one of three lots he bought in 1852. Porch
was removed and building was moved several feet when
remodeling occurred.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for Storm Windows on all of the
windows in the house.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On September 28, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Vernon Carey for a fence in the
rear yard.
On April 3, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to Richard Butler for the renovation of the
structure.
Location of Project
Page 27 of 29
Typical windows on the north elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The guidelines state on page 14:
“Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do
not require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Exterior screen and storm
windows should be wood or baked-on enamel
or anodized aluminum in a color to match the
window sash paint color and fit within the
window frames, not overlap the frames.
Screens should be full-view. Storm windows
may also be mounted on the inside of
windows. Half screen and screen or storm
windows smaller than original window are not
recommended.”
The storm windows specified are a “low profile
exterior storm such as the Allied Historic One Lite.”
The cover letter states that the storm windows will
provide energy conservation, noise reduction and
security. The storm windows will be custom made
to fit the existing openings with a finish to match or
blend with the existing trim paint. Storm windows
such as these have been installed on the Old State
House Museum and are difficult to discern that there
are storm windows present until one gets within five
feet of the window.
SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING
The applicant attended the November 26, 2018 pre
application hearing. There were no written
comments from the commissioners concerning the
storm windows.
Photo of storm window on Old State house
Page 28 of 29
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
5. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018
Commissioner Frances McSwain stated at the beginning of the previous item for the record that
she was recusing from this item because it was her personal residence. She also stated that
she was authorizing Patricia Blick to represent her on the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar
stated that he was recusing from the item since he is in the area of influence. Both
commissioners left the hearing room.
Patricia Blick, 1702 N Palm, stated that she would be representing the applicant on this item.
She stated that the addition of storm windows is consistent with the Secretary of Interior
Standards #9 and #3. They will provide weatherization and preservation of the windows, some
of which are early to the house. She continued that exterior storms are not prohibited in the
guidelines and that the applicant will caulk the windows to make them less obvious. Vice Chair
Jeremiah Russel stated that they should be caulked and not screwed. She stated that caulking
them in place would be acceptable.
A motion was made to approve this item as amended by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was
seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent (Frederick), and 2 recusals (McSwain and Pekar). Chair Holder and Commissioner
Hodge voted for the item because it adhered to the guidelines, Commissioner Jones stated that
it adhered to the Guidelines as per page 14 of the guidelines and Vice Chair Russell sated it
adhered to the guidelines since they will not be screwed in place.
After Commissioner McSwain returned to the room, Chair Holder asked her if she was aware
that since there were five or less commissioners there that she could have deferred the item for
one month. She stated that she was aware of that and she chose to go ahead with the items.
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff reported the sign for Midtown Properties was still an issue and had not been removed yet.
Certificates of Compliance
No Certificates of compliance were signed during the last month.
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 6:15 p.m.
Attest:
Chair Date
Secretary/Staff Date
Page 29 of 29