HDC_12 09 2019Page 1 of 24
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, December 9, 2019, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
Members Present: Chair Ted Holder
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
Lauren Frederick
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Two Open Positions
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Sherri Latimer
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Frances McSwain Ray Wittenberg Felix Pekar
Rebecca Pekar Fred Brown Dale Pekar
John Hofheimer Susan Taylor Bryce Taylor
Patricia M Blick Tim Heiple Bo Briggs
Adam Smith Melissa T Laux Carl Miller
Stephanie Roberts Leonard Hollinger Bryan Pitts
Richard Butler Rebecca Dalton Greg Roberts
Melinda Abernathy Nick Schoeneman
Christina Allman Matthew Pekar
Approval of Minutes
There were no minutes to approve at tonight’s meeting.
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.
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
Page 2 of 24
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 9, 2019
APPLICANT: Tim Heiple, Heiple+Wiedower
ADDRESS: NE Corner 10th and Rock Streets
FILE NUMBER: HDC2019-023
COA REQUEST: Infill 18 unit multifamily building
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at NE Corner 10th and
Rock Streets. The property’s legal description is “Lot 4, 5,
and 6, Block 59, less and except a 20’ portion on the east
side, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas”
The property has been vacant since at least the time the
January 1970 aerial photos were taken. In the 1960
aerial photos, there were six houses shown with four
facing Rock Street and two facing 10th Street.
The proposed application features a multifamily structure
with 18 units that will be constructed for sale as condos.
The single building proposed is “L” shaped with a
courtyard. It is three stories tall with parking
underground and in the rear.
This property is the subject to a Planned Residential
Development rezoning (Z-9467) at the Planning Commission which was deferred on November
21 to the January 9, 2020 hearing.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On October 1, 1998, a COA was approved and issued to Archie Hearne for twelve townhouses
in two structures.
On September 21, 1987, a COA was approved and issued Dr. NW Reigler, Jr., MD for the
construction of a medical clinic.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 24
The Sanborn maps below show up to six houses have been on this site. In 1897, only five
houses were shown. All the houses were one story with shingle roofs with porches on the left
side. The porches were covered with slate or metal roofs. The 1960 serial phot shows the same
roof structure for the four houses facing Rock; they may have been identical houses to start. On
the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, six houses were shown all being one story. Two
houses were added on 10th Street. The roofs were shingle with slate or metal on the porches.
1960 Aerial photo 1970 aerial photo
The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the
district is authorized by the Sections 14-172-208 of the Arkansas state statute and is shown as
an attachment at the end of this report.
The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the
district is authorized by the Sections Sec. 23-115, Sec. 23-119, and Sec. 23-120 of the Little
Rock Municipal code and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report.
The guidelines cover new construction of residential structures on pages 31-41 under Section V.
Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings. Site
1939 Sanborn Map (Note: Site has six houses
and lot to east is vacant.)
1950 Sanborn map (Note: Park Place Apts has
been built.)
Page 4 of 24
Design is on pages 57-64 under Section VII Design Guidelines for Site Design and is shown as
an attachment at the end of this report.
Proposed Elevation along Rock Street.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
SITING
The building is “L” shaped with the two wings facing the streets and a courtyard and parking in
the rear. The wing facing Rock Street is 140 feet long not including porches and steps. It has a
5 foot setback on the north side and a five foot setback on the south not including porches and
steps. Subtracting porches and steps along 10th, the setback is 1’-8”. The wing facing 10th
Street is 113’-5” long not including porches and steps. The setback along 10th Street is 5 feet,
and the east setback is 5 feet. Subtracting porches and steps along Rock Street, the setback is
1’-8”. The setback of the building along the street is similar to the setbacks of 913 R ock and
Park Place Apartments at 920 Commerce Street. This building is wider than other buildings on
the adjacent block faces although the facade treatment has attempted to break up the mass
through use of different colors and materials. The site coverage, the amount of the site covered
by a building, appears to be greater that the buildings in the area of influence.
Surrounding properties north at
913 Rock Street
Project site looking north from
10th
Surrounding properties east on
10th 920 Commerce
Page 5 of 24
Across street at 922 Rock Across street at 1003 Rock Across street at 407 E 10th
HEIGHT
The applicant has provided a drawing showing heights of buildings on the adjacent streets with
information gained from the PAgis topography site where base ground elevation is measured in
addition to building heights using LiDAR technology. The tallest part of the proposed building,
the third floor under the mansard roof, is 44 feet tall and the three-story portion is 40 feet tall
according to the drawings provided. The corner bay of the building features the mansard roof
being four feet taller to add emphasis to the corner of the building. Height in MacArthur Park is
measured to the highest point of the building from the ground according to the guidelines.
Zoning measures height from the elevation from the lowest finished floor to the deck line of a
mansard roof, this would add an additional three feet to the height. From the architect’s
drawings below, Park Place Apartments measures 42 feet, 913 Rock measures 23 feet, 922
Rock measures 31 feet and 405 E 10th measures 42 feet. The numbers from Pagis are from the
ground base elevation. These structures have pitched roofs whereas the proposed building will
have flat roofs sloped to the courtyard.
Context of site provided by architect.
Page 6 of 24
PROPORTION
The proportion of this building to others in the area of influence is varied. It shares a similar
width to Park Place Apartments when comparing the long axis of Park Place. It is wider than all
of the other buildings in the area of influence. Just outside the area of influence, it is less wide
than Cumberland Towers and the Parkview Towers at 1200 Commerce. The state statute
references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district.
In individual elements of the building, the building is more in proportion to the rest of the area of
influence. The windows are vertically oriented and some ganged and some not. The doors are
6’-8” tall with transoms (not overly sized). The window to wall (solid to void) ratio is visu ally
similar to surrounding buildings. The cornice could be considered to be undersized for this
height of building. On the corner bay with the mansard roof, the bay seems out of proportion.
The brick area on the second floor appears too short to support the visual weight of the
mansard roof.
RHYTHM
The building has a rhythm with the placement of windows and doors that is reoccurring and
orderly. The building is also divided into seven bays on the Rock Street and the 10th Street side
is divided into five bays. This rhythm of alternating brick and stucco creates a rhythm that could
mirror individual houses if attached. The building features two bays, one on each side (with
stucco finish), which is recessed instead of having one flat plane that is beneficial. On the Rock
Street side, the southernmost stucco bay is recessed five feet.
SCALE
This proposed design has divided the building into smaller bays with differing materials,
setbacks, and colors. The Park Place apartments are four stories with one in the reclaimed attic
area. Other buildings in the area are one, two, and two and one-half stories tall. The building
scale is similar in footprint area to Park Place Apartments, but not to any other building in the
area of influence. Immediately outside the area of influence lie Cumberland Towers and
Parkview Towers. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of
Influence as well as the entire district.
The scale is influenced with the setbacks. The setbacks are similar with 913 Rock and Park
Place Apartments, but the width of the existing buildings along 10th Street and Rock Street are
less than the proposed building which makes the scale seem larger.
Proposed Elevation along 10th Street.
Page 7 of 24
When analyzing the elements of the building with the building itself, the building is in scale with
the doors, windows, recesses, etc. For example, the window size is appropriate and in scale for
that smaller bays of the building. The corner bay with the mansard roof seems out of scale
being top heavy.
MASSING
The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but most of the existing
buildings have pitched roofs. The heights of the buildings are measured to the top of the
pitched roof per the guidelines. The additional mass of a pitched roof to a building is obviously
less than that of a mansard roof. A mansard roof brings more of the mass closer to the street.
The wider elevations of the building also add to the larger perceived mass. The building has
three recessed areas to break up the plane of the elevation. The porches, balconies, and steps
will break up the mass on the first-floor level. The sunken parking is a bonus to the site but
makes the first floor be five feet off the ground which adds to the overall height and mass of the
building. The foundation heights on this building will be higher than others in the area of
influence.
ENTRANCE AREA
On Rock Street, there will be three entrances to the units. On 10th Street,
there will be two. These will be either recessed or flush with the facade.
What are labeled as porches on the site plan are shown as balconies on
the elevations. They are 5 feet deep. The exterior steps to a landing
serve a common door that will house an elevator for six units. There will
be a small overhang fixed canopy at the door over the landing. On
existing structures, 913 Rock has a minimal porch area with the door
slightly recessed from the front facade. Most of the structures in the area
of influence have front porches with the exception of 920 Rock (the faux
New Orleans apartments), the Kadel Cottage at 407 E 10th, and Park
Place Apartments.
All of the proposed units will have access to the street level via steps with
metal railings. The bay at the street corner and will feature an arched
opening on both elevations and is the functional entrance to one of the units via Rock Street.
The steps to the units will be concrete with a light broom finish.
WALL AREAS
The end wall areas (north
and east elevations) consist
of two types of materials.
Those bays with a limestone
tile base will have the
limestone wrap around the
corner. Otherwise, the
entirety of the end walls will
be brick. Brick is a very
common building material in
the district and the area of
influence. The windows are
vertically oriented and
Entry Door
Detail
Example of Stucco with
lime wash
Photo of limestone tile
Page 8 of 24
aligned vertically at the rear of the structure. There is a rowlock at the floor level to denote the
differing stories of the building.
The windows are manufactured by Crestmark, are vinyl, all are 2 over 2 vertical, and will have
mullions applied to the exterior of the window. The glass will be insulated glass. The windows
will be a “Sandstone” color. The rough sizes of the windows are 36” x 78” and 48” x 7 8”.
Windows installed in the brick or stucco will have a 2” wide brick mold on three sides and an
oversized wood-like sill on the bottom. Windows in the mansard roof section will have cornices
with roofing or flashing applied, wood-like trim on the sides and the bottom of the window will be
flush with the mansard roof with sill the same width as the window
The doors will be by Simpson, will have a stained wood finish and be 36” by 6’-8” tall with a
transom above. They are a six panel wood door.
Side elevation of building
ROOF AREA
The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have
pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and mansard roofs. The HDC measures the
heights of building to the highest point. This building with the flat and mansard roofs, brings the
highest point of the building closer to the street whereas most of the existing structures in the
area of influence have pitched roofs which place the highest point farther away from the street
and the viewer. 920 Rock Street is a two story building and has a flat roof.
The non-mansard roof portions of the building will feature a 24” tall cornice. The near flat roofs
will have a minimal slope to the courtyard and will have a TPO c overing. TPO stands for
thermoplastic polyolefin, a single-ply roofing membrane that covers the surface
Page 9 of 24
of the roof. TPO is actually one of a few
different types of rubber, usually a blend of
polypropylene and ethylene-propylene
rubber. Gutters and downspouts will only
be on the rear portions of the building.
Some of the bays will feature a mansard
roof that will be covered in DeVinci
Bellaforte Slate, a composite virgin resin
material of interlocking and overlaying tiles.
FAÇADE
Wall areas consist of three types of
materials. Those bays with a limestone tile
base will have the second and third floors veneered in brick. The brick on the bay on the street
corner will be white and the other brick on the building will be red brick. The other bays will have
a stucco finish with a lime wash proposed to give it an aged look. The limestone and the stucco
cover the foundation. The three bays at the street corner will have slate shingles on the top
floor. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence. Stucco
is used as the primary building material at 1107 Cumberland and is a material historically used
in gable ends. Slate is not a common roofing material in the district but has been used on at
least four structures (Vila Marre, Cherry House, Lutheran Church, and St Edwards Church).
The windows are vertically oriented and fairly symmetrically placed. The windows and
balconies clearly identify the different floors of the building. There are multiple vents on the
foundation of approximately 2 feet by 4 feet that vent the basement parking level.
DETAILING
Detailing of the building will be primarily in the porch areas, balconies and roofing. Here the
primary elements with be the railings, arched top of the porch, and the slate roof. The building
is shown with a cornice that will be at the top of the third floor features dentil molding. It is
shown to be painted and is a “wood-like material”. The dormer windows on the third floor will
have metal flashing between the slate and the wood trim around the windows. The dormers
have flat and arched tops. Details are in scale with the building and not overpowering.
Downspouts will not be located on the street facades. No solar panels are being proposed on
this building.
Slate roof shingles
Metal Railings on steps and
porches
Proposed Cornice Proposed Cornice mockup
Page 10 of 24
SITE DESIGN
SIDEWALKS:
The sidewalk along Rock and 10th Street will be replaced. They are plain concrete sidewalks
and will be replaced with non-stained light broom finish concrete.
PLANNED GREEN SPACE:
The trees that are between the sidewalks and the street are proposed to be preserved.
FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS:
The fences proposed along the street frontage is a metal 4 feet tall fence by Ameristar Montage
Plus fencing. The fence is proposed to be a metal fence with double top rails and pressed flat
finials. This is not in compliance with the guidelines that state a 3 feet tall fence is appropriate.
There will be gates to the porch areas breaking this fence, two times on Rock Street and two
times on 10th Street. The fence will not feature a ninety degree right angle and follow the
property line exactly. Instead, it clip the corner by the intersection and feature a 45 degree
section to allow for the building sign to be placed on the property outside of the right of way.
The side and rear fence (north and east sides) will
be a six feet tall opaque wood privacy fence. On
the north side, it will start at the rear of the building.
On the east side, the six foot tall wood privacy
fence is already there. The connections between
the lower front yard fences and the taller rear and
side yard fences are crucial. The guidelines state
that the taller privacy fences should start one-half
way back of the primary structure.
On the north side, the start of the six feet opaque
fence needs to start at a logical point. The property
at 913 Rock has a privacy fence in the rear yard. 411 E 9th Street also has a fence that abuts
the subject property. There is a stairway down to the lower parking garage midway of the wall
and possible hvac units to the rear of the building. Mechanical units should be screened.
Starting the wood fence as far away from Rock Street yet enclosing any mechanical units and
stairway would meet the spirit of the guidelines. The metal fence along Rock Street could be
extended to meet the starting point of the wood fence.
On the east side, the existing parking area has a six feet tall wood privacy fence. A portion of
that fence should be removed to conform to the spirit of the Guidelines. It is unknown who owns
that particular fence. It is also debatable if that fence needs to remain since it will be one foot
off the face of the building.
Dumpsters should be screened. The dumpster will be shared with Park Place Apartments. The
screening required is an opaque fence at least 24” above the top of the dumpster not to exceed
8 feet in height (Sec. 36-523 and Sec. 15-95).
Proposed fence
Page 11 of 24
LIGHTING
Exterior light fixtures are shown at the corner unit at the intersection
of Rock and 10th Street. They are a modified Carriage style wall
hung fixture by Kichler, Bay Village series with a Weathered Zinc
finish. Other lighting visible to the public includes recessed can
fixtures over the individual doors at the entryways. Additional lights in
the courtyard area will not be visible from the street.
No Security lighting has been specified.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND CURB CUTS:
Thirty-four parking spaces are being provided underground or in the
rear of the building. These spaces will be accessed through the
existing curb cut on 10th Street. No additional curb cuts will be made.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS
Air conditioning will be either roof top units or split systems. There will be outside equipment
located on the roof generally in the center of the building and possibly on the ground on the
north side and in the courtyard.
ELECTRICAL AND GAS METERS:
Electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear or side
elevations, not visible from the street.
SATELLITE DISHES:
Satellite dishes are not anticipated on this project. Any installation of Satellite Dishes will need
to be approved either by Staff because they are not visible from the street or by the Commission
if they are visible.
SIGN:
The sign will be placed outside of the fence.
It will be four feet tall by four feet wide and
faced in the same limestone that is on the
building. Metal letters will be attached to the
sign. There will be two small ground
mounted lights on the sign. The lights on
the sign should not be oversized; washing
out of the details and words of the sign is
commonplace.
SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING
The applicant attended the September 20, 2019 pre application hearing. The comments from
the commissioners are summarized as follows:
SITING – generally no concern and is respective of adjacent properties.
HEIGHT – The building is taller than the guidelines allow and would like to see other
buildings in the area. Guidelines state height should be 35’ or 3 stories within the district.
PROPORTION – generally in compliance.
Lighting
Proposed sign
Page 12 of 24
RHYTHM – divided response with not complying with the guidelines or okay for what it is.
SCALE – generally in compliance in relation to surrounding buildings, but setback facades
help to reduce overall impact. Height is an issue.
MASSING – Would like information on sizes of neighbor buildings, height is an issue.
ENTRANCE AREA – generally in compliance.
WALL AREAS – generally in compliance with one comment of glass area is large compared
to wall area.
ROOF AREA – generally in compliance.
FAÇADE – generally in compliance but make sure all exterior materials are used in some
form in the district.
DETAILING – be respective of surrounding context.
Staff feels that multifamily developments with the look of townhouses can be appropriate infill for
lots that have been vacant for forty plus years. However, the construction of multifamily can
alter the scale of the area as evidenced in the last three multifamily projects that have been built
in the district. Materials and facade treatments become important to blend into the
neighborhood. This project has divided the street elevations into five and seven bays on each
street elevation. Proposed materials have been used in the district or are historic materials that
would have been used in the period of significance.
The height of the building is similar to others in the district but taller than some in the area of
influence. The state statute speaks to being appropriate to the area of inf luence and the district
as a whole. The district has mid-rise towers such as Cumberland and Parkview Towers but the
majority of the district is one and two story homes interspersed with the occasional three story
apartment building. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the
existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and mansard roofs.
This building with the flat and mansard roofs brings the highest point of the building closer to the
street whereas most of the existing structures in the area of influence have pitched roofs which
place the highest point farther away from the street and the viewer. This affects the perceived
mass and scale of the project. However, if a development is executed well with materials,
details, rhythm of elements, it can be appropriate to the district. Staff feels that this project is
readable as an infill project and does not duplicate a historic building. It uses materials that are
found in the district or have been used historically.
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. Any changes to the elevations of the building in any phase of the permitting process to
be reviewed by Staff.
Page 13 of 24
3. No electric meters, hvac equipment, cable boxes, satellite dishes, or other utility
equipment to be installed on street facing facades.
4. All ground mounted fences along Rock and 10th Street installed at ground level within
the built setback shall be 36 inches tall.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019
Chair Ted Holder stated for the commission in general that all commissioners have been
bombarded with emails and some with phone calls about this item. Chair Holder stated that the
commissioners have not promised any votes one way or the other. Sherry Latimer, City
Attorney’s office, reiterated that any emails or phone calls have not influenced any decision on
their part. Chair Holder stated that summed up his comments.
Brian Minyard, Staff, clarified that all emails received as of today have been submitted to the
Commission.
Chair Holder stated that the Staff will make a presentation, then the applicant, then any citizens
can make statements about the application. With the number of people in the audience, all
citizens will be limited to three minutes. He will notify you when your time is almost up. He
encouraged them to not repeat others that have already spoken.
The Chair recognized former Commissioner Missy McSwain with a question. The answer was
that the developer was not limited to three minutes.
Mr. Minyard made a presentation of the item with staff recommendations.
Tim Heiple, representing the applicant, handed out some information to the Commissioners that
were new drawings. He stated that the land was one time a part of the Park Place Apartments
property. They worked on different scenarios to develop the land. With this proposal, there will
be no additional curb cuts. It will feature thirty-six partially underground parking spaces and one
will be on grade. The sixty-feet dimension of the parking dictated the width of the units above.
This will feature 18 units on four levels. These units will be for sale, no rentals. The floor plans
are different in the units.
Chair Holder asked about the differences in the latest version of the project. Mr. Heiple
continued that they took off the penthouses from the earlier submittals. T he building will be
approximately forty feet plus four feet of foundation height. Elevators were eliminated so that
more parking was added underground.
Commissioner Amber Jones asked about the square footage of the units. Mr. Heiple responded
they would be in the 1700-1800 square feet range. With the changes, there will be an entrance
at each bay instead of each unit. The units have changed from multilevel units to flats. He
stated that the corner of the building was taller in an effort to screen the mechanical units on top
of the building.
Chair Holder stated that it was now time for citizen comment. There was a brief discussion and
it was decided that he would go down the sign in list to call speakers.
Missy McSwain, 407 E 10th Street, spoke in opposition to the application. She showed some
slides on the screen and spoke of the contributing and non-contributing structures. She stated
that it was a sensitive area. She spoke of Caroline Row, the oldest apartments that are
Page 14 of 24
rowhouses and of appropriate infill of the Rainwater Flats. She stated the project was too big
for the site and taller than the guidelines stated height of thirty-five feet. She continued that the
proportion is not sympathetic and the mansard roof looked like the 1970’s apartments on Mara
Lynn Drive. The ordinance is there for a reason and please follow the ordinance.
Ray Wittenburg, 407 E 10th Street, spoke in opposition. He stated that the application was
wrong for this place and does not want to look at a massive wall. He believes the project is
overkill and cramming too many units into a small area.
Rebecca Pekar, 1010 Rock, spoke in opposition. She stated she has lived in the neighborhood
for twenty years. The neighborhood has a mix of styles, heights, and sizes. She referenced
photos of Rock Street proceeding north from the freeway. Two properties have burned at the
11th and Rock intersection and will have infill projects there eventually. She continued about the
scale and the general feel of the homes on Rock Street. It is critical that it be right when the
new buildings are approved. She continued about setbacks and the heights of the scale and
spacing of the new buildings.
Fred Brown, 2620 N Fillmore and resident of Little Rock for 68 years, stated that he hoped that
they respected the historic aspect of the area.
Dale Pekar, 1010 Rock, spoke in opposition. He stated the guidelines state thirty-five feet for
infill buildings. He asked for the commission to consider if the project was across the street
from their houses with eighteen units with a forty-four feet tall building with small setbacks. He
asked the Commission to deny the application. He continued that the Commission should be
trying to improve the district, and that the three lots could have three different developments
with single family or duplexes which would be more in keeping with the area.
Mr. Dale Pekar stated that it was inappropriate to compare the height to Cumberland Towers
and Parkview Towers. He finished by saying that the setback of 913 Rock is larger than stated
on the submittals.
John Hoffheimer, 407 E 9th, spoke in opposition. He also owns adjacent property next to the
alley. He stated that he has problems with the trash from the dumpster at Park Place. He feels
that walking past the proposed building will be like walking next to a battleship in drydock. He
continued that the best use of the property would be goats and chickens, but that would be a
little much to ask.
Susan Taylor, 904 Rock, spoke in opposition. She believes that the design is inappropriate in
heights, scale, rhythm, and massing and does not comply with the zoning.
Bryon Taylor, 904 Rock, chose not to speak.
Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, asked if the Commission
had been given her comments. The answer was yes. The project was reviewed by QQA staff,
the advocacy committee and the full board. She commented that the project has some positive
attributes, but did pull some serious concerns with design. The design will overwhelm other
buildings and materials are a concern.
Adam Smith, 1015 Cumberland, lives two blocks from the project. He is a real estate developer
and this is a highly specialized market. This area will soon be at its’ capacity for multi-family
Page 15 of 24
units. If the condos are not sold quickly, they may pivot to rentals. An indefinitely vacant
building is worse.
Melissa Laux, 1015 Rock, spoke in opposition. She appreciated the underground parking. She
spoke of where the guests would park and the area is already tight on parking as is.
Stephanie Roberts, 1014 Rock, stated that she has nothing to add.
Leonard Hollinger, 420 E 11th Street, spoke in opposition. He spoke of his daily habits of his
driving route. Tenants of the Cumberland Apartments park primarily on the street where it is
convenient for them, not where they are supposed to park. He worries that the tenants will be
parking on the street, not in the underground parking area.
Carl Miller, 1400 Spring, stated he lives six blocks from the project and has spent fifty years in
his house. He believes that high density will change the neighborhood. He added that the
mansard roof is ridiculous. He wants something that fits that is not a faux addition. Older
homes are in the area and there has been a lot of loss of structures. He is opposed to the
application.
Chair Holder reminded the audience that the HDC does not make zoning decisions.
Rebecca Dalton, stated he had nothing to add.
Matthew Pekar, 1017 Cumberland, is opposed to the application the same as the rest. He
asked if it was confirmed on how far they could dig down for the garage. What if there is a high-
water table? Has it been tested? He asked that the item be pulled so that the applicant can talk
to people and restructure the application.
Melinda Abernathy stated she had nothing to add.
Greg Roberts, 1014 Rock, stated he had nothing to add.
Nick Schoeneman, 403 E 10th, echoed the other comments in opposition. He stated the
building was out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. He believes there will be a loss
of old growth trees and that two of the four would be taken down. The remaining trees would be
jeopardized during construction.
Christine Allman, 1515 Cumberland, stated that they followed the guidelines when they added a
garage. The project at 10th and Rock should also follow the guidelines.
Richard Butler, 417 E 10th, bought his house in 1968 which was built in 1859. He is not
opposed to development but this density is too high. The height should be thirty-five feet.
Stephanie Roberts of 1014 Rock stated that she did not get a registered letter. It was explained
that she was out of the area of influence.
Felix Pekar, 1010 S Rock, stated that he enjoyed the architectural details when walking in the
neighborhood and he did not see a lot of charming details to the design. He would feel dwarfed
by the height.
Page 16 of 24
Brian Pitts, 305 Rock and occupant of River Market Towers, spoke in favor of the design. He
sells condos downtown and there is a need for condos in this range of 1700 – 2100 square feet.
There is a demographic for this size of condo. He does not believe that this development will
alienate the other neighbors.
Chair Holder asked the applicant if they wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Heiple, stated
that they appreciated the comments in the meeting tonight and that they have a lot of work to
do. He believes that this would be an asset to the neighborhood. They have made modification
to the design and there may not be a happy medium on the project unfortunately.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked what the four conditions were in the staff report. Mr.
Minyard replied and read the conditions.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell spoke to the eleven design factors. He believes it is in compliance
on proportion, rhythm, wall areas, roof areas, and detailing but all could use some adjustments
to the design. Of the design factors where there is still work to be done: the siting and the
height. He stated that the height is nine feet over. He said it was misleading to measure the
height pitched roof versus flat or mansard. On the scale and massing, it needs more setback.
The entrance areas are lacking, generally need a front door and front porch. The five materials
on the facade may been too many and excessive.
He continued that this project makes it difficult to make the case to approve as infill but changes
could be made to make it appropriate for the neighborhood. Density is needed and he hopes
that they continue to redesign. Vice Chair Russell hoped that they would withdraw and come
back again with a substantially changed application.
Chair Holder stated that the entrances are confusing as to where they lead. He echoes Vice
Chair Russell’s comments on the height and setback. Additional density is not bad for
neighborhoods. He hoped that he did not hear that it was this application or nothing.
Commissioner Rob Hodge echoes the comments of Chair Holder and Vice Chair Russell.
Mr. Heiple stated that he believed that they could comply with the Commissions requests but did
not believe that they could change the project enough to satisfy the neighbors.
Vice Chair Russell explained the options of a deferral and a withdrawal and the time difference.
Mr. Heiple asked the Commission to defer the item to a later hearing. Bo Briggs, the applicant,
asked questions about if they could defer thirty or sixty days. After a discussion on the
procedures of deferring versus withdrawing, it was decided that the applicant wante d to defer till
the March 9, 2020 hearing.
Commissioner Frederick asked the applicant if he wanted to defer, submit a redesigned
application and then if the Commission still could not pass it, they would withdraw at that time.
After that, they would come back with a completely different application. The applicant said that
was correct.
The applicant asked to defer to the March 9, 2020 hearing.
Vote on the bylaw waivers, Vice Chair Russell made a motion to waive the bylaws and
Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and
Page 17 of 24
two open positions. Vice Chair Russell accepted the vote to waive the bylaws under protest and
he would like the bylaws to be rewritten to reflect that.
There was a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 hearing by Commissioner Robert
Hodge and was seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, and two open positions.
Chair Holder encouraged everybody to talk about the application and work out a solution.
Missy McSwain asked if new notifications will be sent in advance to the March meeting. The
answer was yes.
Page 18 of 24
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Mr. Minyard stated that there were still working on 314 E 6th Street for the removal of the
awning.
Certificates of Compliance
Mr. Minyard stated that HDC2019-024 at 1410 S Rock Street for a covered walk and a fence
was issued.
Guideline Revision
The Guideline revision has been progressing but no document is ready for presentation to the
Commission as of yet.
Page 19 of 24
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. VII D.
DATE: December 9, 2019
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District wide
REQUEST: Revise Bylaws concerning Ex-Parte Communication
The following are possible additions to the HDC By-Laws. An Article IX would be added to the
end of the bylaws. (The differences between the versions are highlighted.) The Commission is
by no means limited to these possibilities. Commissioners are welcome to make other
suggestions. Once a final decision is made, the Commission will amend the By-Laws pursuant
to Article VII. Amendments. If there are any other sections of the By-Laws which need to be
amended, it is advised that the Commission address all By-Law amendments at the same time.
The current set of bylaws were adopted in 2011.
Article IX. Ex-Parte Communications
ISSUE 1: Who cannot communicate with a Commissioner ex-parte?
VERSION 1.1:
Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide
upon between a person who is not a member of the Historic District Commission or
affiliated with the Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is
considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex-parte communications are prohibited.
VERSION 1.2:
Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide
upon between an applicant or any person who is professionally affiliated with the
applicant regarding a matter before the Historic District Commission and a
Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex-
parte communications are prohibited.
Analysis of Issue 1:
Version 1 prohibits all citizens from talking to the commissioner where version 2 only prohibits
the applicant and their team. Initially, Staff thought the crux of the matter was version 2 which is
Page 20 of 24
the applicant and their team. Version 1 is the stricter and would qualify any and all
communication as ex-parte.
ISSUE 2: What happens in the event of an ex-parte communication?
VERSION 2.1:
In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commission member shall disclose the
communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting
and recuse himself from all Commission discussions and votes concerning the matter
which was the subject of the ex-parte communication.
VERSION 2.2:
In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commission member shall disclose the
communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting.
Analysis of Issue 2:
Version 1 states that when ex-parte communication happens, that commissioner discloses the
information and recuses. Version 2 is disclosure but they keep voting privileges.
A question is how much the Commissioner participated in the attempted ex-parte
communication. Commissioners cannot avoid unsolicited emails. Commissioners do not have
to reply to the email. All emails that are received by Commissioners on the item should be
forwarded to Staff to include in the record.
Commissioners also cannot stop a person approaching them at the grocery store, street, etc., to
discuss an item. What commissioners can do is to thwart the conversation by stating “If I have
a conversation with you about the project, I may have to recuse on the item. Please send the
Staff any concerns you have on the project. The Staff can discuss the project with you.” Verbal
conversations are more difficult to translate for disclosure. A way to handle this would be for the
commissioner to email staff with a synopsis immediately after the conversation when the
discussion is still fresh. This email could be entered as part of the record.
Issue 2 is tied to the results of Issue 1. The following are the four scenarios of the possible
outcomes of the votes.
1.1 and 2.1 All citizens included in ex-parte, commissioners disclose and recuse
All commissioners that have had any communication with anyone would need to disclose and
recuse. This could result in hampering the function of the Commission by having multiple
recusals on high profile items.
1.2 and 2.1 Applicant and team included in ex-parte, commissioners disclose and recuse
All commissioners that have had any communication with the applicant or their team would
need to disclose and recuse. This would potentially have a lesser result but would still hamper
the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items.
1.1 and 2.2 All citizens included in ex-parte, commissioners disclose and vote
All commissioners that have had any communication with anyone would need to disclose but
could still vote. This could be the case of unsolicited emails that were not replied to and
thwarted conversations about an item.
Page 21 of 24
1.2 and 2.2 Applicant and team included in ex-parte, commissioners disclose and but could
still vote
All commissioners that have had any communication with the applicant or their team would
need to disclose but would vote.
At the beginning of each item at the public hearings, Staff (Planning or Attorney’s office) will
need to ask if there are any commissioners that have had ex-parte communication and details
(email, phone, in person conversation, if the commissioner engaged in dialogue, etc.) There
would need to be discussion and an agreement that the commissioner would need to recuse or
not based on each instance.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019
A motion was made to defer the Area of Influence and the Bylaw changes items to the next
hearing by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Frederick. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two open positions.
Page 22 of 24
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. VII E.
DATE: December 9, 2019
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District Wide
REQUEST: Review Area of Influence for notices
The area of influence was changed in late 2016 from 150 feet for all surrounding properties to
150 feet for all properties plus those in the block that were not included. The previous 150 f oot
notice area did not always notify every property owner in the block even on the standard 300
square foot block. City Staff is reviewing development codes. They have suggested that we
modify the area of influence for notifications. The Planning Commission and Board of
Adjustment for their purposes use 200 feet.
When compared to the standard we use now (150 feet plus the remainder of the block), this
additional 50 feet would include more notifications in adjacent blocks but may not catch all
within the block.
There are six superblocks in the district (larger than the 300’ x 300’ standard size for downtown
Little Rock). Three are bounded by Capitol, 8th, Rock and Sherman. The others are at the Law
School, MacArthur Park proper, and the Parkview Towers at 11th and Commerce. Staff has
used the definition of block as that area surrounded by streets.
Staff analyzed the maximum distance that would be required to notify property owners in each
block. From one corner to the other is the greatest distance and it is noticeably longer if the
corner parcels have been subdivided. The typical block with original lots was 12 parcels. Some
blocks have only one parcel of property and some blocks two parcels. Of the 42 blocks
analyzed, the average distance between the farthest parcels was 140 feet. The longest
distance between parcels was 575 feet in the block bounded by 6th, Sherman, 7th and Rock
Streets. The second longest was at 552 for the block bounded by Capitol, Sherman, 6th and
Rock.
If an applicant is providing notices because they filed for a Certificate of App ropriateness and if
you fall within the six superblocks, you must provide more notifications than the other applicants
in smaller blocks. This adds up to more names to be researched by the abstract company and
Page 23 of 24
more certified return receipt mailings to post which costs you noticeably more than other
property owners.
Since the notification requirements have been changed to include everyone in the block,
different owners have had to resubmit their lists from the abstract company because the
company had a difficult time understanding the boundaries. Changing the notifications to a
straight 200 feet would satisfy notifying all the owners in the block for the majority of blocks,
reduce confusion of generating the lists by standardization within the entire department, reduce
the mailing costs and abstract costs for the applicants, and equalize the playing field for those
who own property in the three superblocks.
The ordinance states that the Area of influence is to be described in the Guidelines. A vote will
change the definition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Area of influence to be changed to 200 feet.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019
A motion was made to defer the Area of Influence and the Bylaw changes items to the next
hearing by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Frederick. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two open positions.
Page 24 of 24
2020 Calendar
The 2020 Calendar was presented by Brian Minyard, Staff. There was a motion made by Vice
Chair Jeremiah Russell to adopt the calendar as presented. Commissioner Lauren Frederick
seconded. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two open positions.
Election of Officers.
After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Holder to nominate Commissioner
Russell as Chair for calendar year 2020. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner
Hodge. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two open positions.
After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Russell to nominate Commissioner
Holder as Vice Chair for calendar year 2020. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner
Hodge. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, O noes, and two open positions.
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 6:35 p.m.
Attest:
Secretary /Staff Date