HDC_03 09 2020Page 1 of 39
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
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, March 9, 2020 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being seven (7 in number).
Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell
Vice Chair Ted Holder
Lauren Frederick
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Lindsey Boerner
Christine Aleman
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Sherri Latimer
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Frances Missy McSwain
John Harrelson
Debra Wolfe
Ralph Wilcox
Mollie Waldon
Ben Byers
John McCarty
Katherine Matthews
Approval of Minutes
The February 10, 2020 minutes were not prepared in time for the review of the Commission and
will be submitted at the April 13, 2020 meeting.
Page 2 of 39
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV.
DATE: March 9, 2020
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 3220 Cantrell Road
FILE NUMBER: NR2020-001
REQUEST: Determination of Eligibility of the Boy Scouts of America Building to the
National Register of Historic Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 3220 Cantrell Road. The property’s legal description is “Lot 14
of the Riverside Commercial Park Subdivision of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
Location of the Boy Scouts of America Building
Page 3 of 39
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Determination of Eligibility of the Boy Scouts of
America Building.
The nomination states:
The Boy Scouts of America Building in Little Rock, Arkansas, is being nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C as an
excellent example of Modern architecture designed with Mid-Century Modern aesthetics.
Built in 1964, this is one of the few buildings designed by Arkansas architect Lugean L.
Chilcote, a member of the notable Erhart, Eichenbaum, Rauch & Blass design firm that
was responsible for many of the Mid-Century Modern buildings in Little Rock. The building
features many Mid-Century Modern characteristics such as operative opposite,
trapezoidal windows, thin roof, wide overhangs, and modular repetitions. These features
are blended with the rustic aesthetic often associated with the style of National Park
System as well as many other Scouting buildings, creating a representation of Mid-South
regional Modernism.
In addition, this building is being nominated with local significance under Criterion A,
Social History, for its association with the historical developments of Scouting in Arkansas
and the local organization’s modernization that reflects patterns at the national level.
Following the post-war population boom in America, the Quapaw Area Council (QAC)
experienced a significant increase in memberships and created new recruitment strategies
focused more on emerging STEM fields than the organization’s outdoorsman roots. In
order to meet the needs of the significantly larger membership levels in the state, a new
modern headquarters was planned for the QAC. This building’s design would reflect the
program’s shift to a more modern business while still playing homage to its rustic roots.
The period of significance for Criterion A is 1962-1970 encompassing the planning of this
building and their STEM focused recruitment strategies as evidence of a period of
transition for the organization.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion A and C.
Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2020
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. He introduced Ralph Wilcox, AHPP,
to the podium to explain why the item was being considered as an expanded Determination of
Eligibility and not as the regular Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Wilcox explained that the Boy Scouts administration had originally agreed to place the building
on the National Register. Recently, the administration stated that they were going to put the
building up for sale and were worried that the listing could harm the sale. It was then decided to
go ahead and pursue the option of an Expanded Determination of Eligibility so that it could
be presented to the State Review Board and not lose the AHPP’s research that had been
Page 4 of 39
completed by a graduate assistant. It the new buyer wants to proceed with the listing, he could
use this research.
Commissioner Amber Jones stated that it is disappointing that the owners do not want to list the
building because it could be an incentive for a new buyer.
There were no citizens present to speak on the item.
There was a motion made to recommend that the state review board accept the Determination
of Eligibility for the Boy Scouts Building by Commissioner Jones. It was seconded by
Commissioner Robert Hodge and was approved with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Page 5 of 39
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: March 9, 2020
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 6 of 39
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 7 of 39
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 Rock 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 8 of 39
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 9 of 39
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 visually 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.
When analyzing the elements of the building with the building itself, the building is in scale with
Proposed Elevation along 10th Street.
Page 10 of 39
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
aligned vertically at the rear of the structure. There is a rowlock at the floor level to denote the
differing stories of the building.
Entry Door
Detail
Example of Stucco with
lime wash
Photo of limestone tile
Page 11 of 39
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 78”. 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 covering. TPO stands for
thermoplastic polyolefin, a single-ply roofing membrane that covers the surface of the roof. TPO
Page 12 of 39
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 13 of 39
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 14 of 39
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 15 of 39
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 influence 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 16 of 39
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-foot 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 rent als. 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. The 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 row
Page 17 of 39
houses 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 rig ht 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 Hofheimer, 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 units.
Page 18 of 39
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 19 of 39
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 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 wanted 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 two
Page 20 of 39
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.
STAFF UPDATE: March 9, 2020
Staff received an email dated February 6, 2020 that the applicant wishes to defer to the April 13,
2020 agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 9, 2020
Staff recommends deferral to the April 13, 2020 meeting.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2020
There was a motion made to defer the item to the April 13, 2020 agenda by Commissioner Amber
Jones. It was seconded by Commissioner Lindsey Boerner and was passed with a vote of 7 ayes
and 0 noes.
Page 21 of 39
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: March 9, 2020
APPLICANT: Debra Wolfe
ADDRESS: 617 Cumberland Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-004
COA REQUEST: Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 617 Cumberland
Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1
MacArthur Place Subdivision to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built in 2005. It is
considered a "Non-contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
Fencing was installed without a COA by the HDC and
without a building permit. The proposed fence is to the
rear of the property on both sides of the house.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On July 11, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to
Alice Lightle for front yard fencing.
On July 14, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for construction of a single family
house.
Location of Project
Page 22 of 39
North side of house photo from applicant South side of house photo from applicant
North side of house from sidewalk Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The fence was installed to expand the dog run area. On the north side of the house, an area of
3.5’ x 50’ was enclosed along the garage and courtyard areas. This portion is visible from the
street. On the south side of the house, a fence was already in place to enclose the courtyard
area. The additional fence, 27.29’, was added beside the garage.
On page 60 of the Guidelines, it states that “Fences in the rear yard and those on the side property
lines without street frontage may be 72” tall. The privacy fence should be setback from the front
façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure.
Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or
shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure…”
The fence appears to be six feet tall. It is setback more than halfway from the front of the house
on both sides. The fence is constructed in a style that should reflect the style of the house. This
fence complies with the guidelines for fences in the rear yard.
Page 23 of 39
Sketch provided by applicant. (Cumberland Street is to the right, north is down on this sketch.)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one
phone call regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
5. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020
Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that the mailings to the area of influence had been done incorrectly.
The Staff recommendation was to defer to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The applicant is aware
that the notices were done wrong and will resend them for the March meeting.
Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to waive the bylaws requiring a five day written notice to
defer the item. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open
Position.
Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The motion
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position.
STAFF UPDATE: March 9, 2020
Notices were done correctly for this agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
Page 24 of 39
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2020
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item including the enforcement aspects.
Deborah Wolfe, the applicant, spoke about this being her first time to own a home in the historic
district. She stated that the fence was installed to create an area for her dogs.
There were no citizens present to speak on the item.
A motion to approve with staff recommendations and conditions was made by Vice Chair Ted
Holder. It was seconded by Commissioner Amber Jones and was approved with a vote of 7 ayes
and 0 noes.
Page 25 of 39
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: March 9, 2020
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District wide
REQUEST: Revise By-laws
The HDC By-Laws do not address ex-parte communication. As these communications are a
reoccurring issue the HDC has decided it would be in the Commission’s best interests to amend
its By-Laws to include a provision on ex-parte communication.
Such an amendment would take the form of adding an Article IX. The HDC has unfettered
discretion to draft this By-Law provision However; there are possible amendments which highlight
the key issues. (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 By-Laws 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.
Page 26 of 39
Analysis of Issue 1:
Version 1.1 prohibits all citizens from talking to a Commissioner where version 1.2 only prohibits
the applicant and his/her team. Staff is of the opinion that version 2 better addresses the problems
Commissioners face concerning ex-parte communications. Version 1.1 is the stricter and would
qualify any and all communication outside of HDC meetings 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 Commissioner 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 Commissioner shall disclose the
communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting.
Analysis of Issue 2:
Version 2.1 states that when an ex-parte communication happens, that Commissioner must
disclose the information to the HDC and recuse. Version 2.2mandates disclosure but the
Commissioner retains his/her voting privileges.
Issue 2 is tied to the results of Issue 1. The following are the four scenarios of the possible
outcomes of the proposed amendments.
1.1 and 2.1 All citizens included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and
Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse.
All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the
Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation and recuse from a vote on the
matter. This could result in hampering the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals
on high profile items.
1.2 and 2.1 Only the applicant and his/her team included in the definition of ex-parte
communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse.
All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would
have to disclose the conversation and recuse. This would potentially have a lesser result than
the above-mentioned scenario but could still hamper the function of the Commission by having
multiple recusals on high profile items.
1.1 and2.2 All citizens are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and
Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but can vote.
All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the
Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. This could
include unsolicited emails which were not replied to and thwarted conversations about an item
(see below).
Page 27 of 39
1.2 and 2.2 Only the applicant and his/her team are included in the definition of ex-parte
communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but could still vote.
All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would
have to disclose the conversation but could still vote.
At the beginning of each item at the public hearings, Staff (Planning or City Attorney’s office) will
have to ask if there are any Commissioners who have had ex-parte communications and details
or evidence of such (email, phone, in person conversation, if the Commissioner engaged in
dialogue, etc.). There should be an opportunity for discussion and, when needed, a vote that the
Commissioner will recuse or remain and vote based on each instance.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
A matter for consideration is the extent to which the Commissioner participated in the ex-parte
communication. Email in particular poses a problem. Commissioners cannot avoid unsolicited
emails. However, Commissioners do not have to reply to emails. (All emails which 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.” It is advisable
for the Commissioner who has had such a conversation to email Staff with a synopsis immediately
after the conversation when the discussion is still fresh in his/her memory. This email should be
entered as part of the record.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019
This item was deferred to the January 13, 2020 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner
Robert Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions.
STAFF UPDATE: January 13, 2020
After the hearing of December 9, 2020, the following additions to the item are proposed.
There is a proposal to strike this section since it is not a policy that Staff follows.
Article V. Conduct of Business
D. Special Rules of Procedure [p. 6]
6. The Secretary of the Commission shall affix an identification tag which includes the case
number and an exhibit designation in sequence beginning with “A” to each item, visual or
written, formally presented to the Commission at the time of the material’s introduction to
the Commission, which is designated by the applicant or other parties testifying before the
Commission as a submission to form part of the record upon which the Commission makes
its decision.
Page 28 of 39
This section would change the requirement to waive the By-Laws when an applicant wants to
defer at the meeting. The new text would allow them to ask any time before the hearing or at the
hearing.
E. General Policies [p. 7]
8. Deferrals.
An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred only as
follows:
a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant
(1) The applicant's request for deferral must may be submitted in writing prior to the
date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing.
(2) The request for deferral must state the reason that a deferral is needed and must
specify the proposed length of the deferral.
(3) The applicant's request for deferral must be approved by a majority vote of the
Commission members present.
(4) No single request for deferral by an applicant shall be granted for more than one
hundred (100) days, except by unanimous vote of all Commission members
present.
(5) In no case shall more than two requests for deferral by an applicant be granted
by the Commission.
(6) Notice of the date of the deferred public hearing shall be sent as required in Article
IV above.
(7) If the applicant is not prepared to move forward after two deferral requests have
been granted by the Commission, the following options are available to the
Commission as circumstances require:
(i) Hold the public hearing and grant or deny the application;
(ii) Defer the public hearing on the Commission's own motion for cause; or
(iii) Dismiss the application without prejudice or with prejudice against refilling the
same application within one (1) year.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020
Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, led the presentation of the item. Commissioner Robert
Hodge stated that the Commissioners should disclose all conversations. Vice Chair Ted Holder
stated that they could not be like Mark Twain’s perfect juror, who knows nothing and can’t read.
The Commissioners live in this society. They have a responsibility to be objective and not be
swayed by citizen comment.
Ms. Latimer recommended that all emails and letters be forwarded to the Staff for distribution to
all Commissioners and the project file. Ms. Latimer will draft something and send to the
Commission ahead of the next meeting. The Commissioners were encouraged to forward any
other items for by-law changes to the Staff for inclusion in the staff report. The item will be placed
on the February 2020 agenda for changes.
Chair Russell asked if the Commission was amenable to revising the text on the five-day notice
for withdrawal. On that, Mr. Minyard explained that it was there for courtesy of the public. If Staff
Page 29 of 39
knows an item will be on deferral, they can notify the public not to attend in advance. Vice Chair
Ted Holder stated that he was in favor of the change in the By-Laws.
Ms. Latimer stated that there will be a vote next month for the by-law changes and that this
discussion today will satisfy the requirements for the By-Laws to be changed.
STAFF UPDATE: February 10, 2020
The proposed amendment will be presented to the Commission for adoption. A clean version of
the By-Laws will be presented at the meeting to be signed with the amendment date on the
original.
COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020
Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission with the two items that had been
presented earlier.
Page Wilson, 324 E 15th Street, stated that the By-Laws mean a lot and that that the Commission
should slow down and think twice about revising the By-Laws. He read Article II Purpose to the
Commission. He said that in training he attended, that the Commission should be consistent in
dealing with applications. He had three suggestions. First, place the By-Laws on the website
and give to each applicant. He stated as an applicant, he has had inconsistencies in procedure.
Secondly, he questioned if they follow Roberts Rules or not. Chair Jeremiah Russell said that
was outlined in the By-Laws. Thirdly, the order of business should be done.
Shawn Overton, City Attorney’s Office, reminded Mr. Wilson that if he had a change to propose,
please state it. Otherwise, this was not a discussion on how meetings were being conducted or
if the By-Laws were being followed.
Mr. Wilson stated that there were portions of the By-Laws that he liked. He continued talking on
the fact that consistency matters and wanted the Commission to increase the number of
definitions in the By-Laws. He stated that he was in support of removing the five day notice on
deferrals.
He asked the Commission to reconsider the time constraint on reconsiderations and withdrawals.
(E General Policies 7d. and 6b) He warned the Commission about precedence and treating
people evenly. He would like to revisit and arbitrary numbers in the By-Laws that dictate time.
He continued that he would like the Commission to review the precedents policy. (E General
Policies 10). Mr. Wilson feels that the Commission has used precedents to vote for or against
certain people in the past. Vice Chair Holder said that the text currently says what Mr. Wilson
wants to change it to. Chair Russell said that each case was different since the Commission
considered context of site on each.
Mr. Wilson spoke of submitted materials being kept for 90 days (General Policies 12 Submitted
materials). He spoke that the number should be reduced. He noted that the procedure of
administrative appeal should be defined. Chair Russell said that is not really a by-law issue. Mr.
Overton stated that a lot of dates that Mr. Wilson is calling arbitrary are in fact based on state law
and city ordinance.
Chair Russell asked if there were any specific changes to the By-Laws that he would like to
propose. Mr. Wilson stated no. He did encourage the Commission to have more discussion and
dialogue on the item.
Page 30 of 39
Frances Missy McSwain, 407 E 10th, asked if the By-Laws were on the website. Staff responded
no. She had a question on how are the By-Laws interpreted per ex parte communication in relation
to Staff communication and how and when those comments are related to the Commission.
Chair Russell spoke of a request to change “E General Policies 6 b” to clarify what a material
change is. He suggested maybe a list of criteria: design, materials, footprint, orientation, etc. and
reference the 11 design factors. He recommended changing the wording to substantial change
with a definition in the By-Laws to be referenced in the Guidelines. He asked for more clarity on
what that means.
Vice Chair Ted Holder spoke about “E General Policies 7 d’. He needed clarification on the 12
months and what does substantial change mean. Chair Russell said that it would be worth
considering but in one instance they would be amending the Denied or Amended Application and
the other would before withdrawn applications. Chair Russell stated that he thinks the time frame
is reasonable.
Chair Russell asked if anybody else had any ideas on the ex parte communication issue. Vice
Chair Holder asked Mr. Minyard about the items that were to be voted on tonight. Mr. Minyard
read the text of what was on the agenda.
Chair Russell asked to look at the withdrawal section and be consistent on material changes. Mr.
Minyard said that he would check the rest of the By-Laws to make sure that there was consistency
on changes through the documents.
Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The motion
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position.
STAFF UPDATE: March 9, 2020
Staff has reviewed the minutes from the last meeting and the current By-Laws for consistency.
The following sections were reviewed at the request of the Commission, Staff, or public input in
order they appear in the By-Laws. The following list includes all previous and new items.
· IV. A regular Meetings 3. Meeting in a location that is more informal.
· V. A Order of Agenda Adding national Register Nominations before COAs.
· V. E 6b Reconsideration What is the definition of a material change?
· V. E 7a Reconsideration Waiving five day notice for withdrawals.
· V. E 7d Reconsideration What is the definition of a material change?
· V. E 8a Reconsideration Waiving five day notice for deferrals.
· V E 10 Precedents how does precedence work
Page 31 of 39
· V E 12 submitted materials reduce 90 day requirement.
· V E 13 Ex-Parte Communication Define ex-parte communication and process.
Analysis of each bulleted item:
IV. A regular Meetings 3.
“The Commission shall meet regularly in the Board of Directors’ Chamber or such other
places as directed by the Commission.”
This is in response to a comment that the meeting should be conducted more informally and held
in a location that was less formal.
A law was passed in 2019 that required all public meetings to be recorded for sound. The City
Board Chambers is the only meeting space where microphones are provided which provides for
a clearer audio file to be made.
The use of informal style setting for the Historic District Commission meeting is well suited for
retreat and work sessions. However, when the Commission conducts its business, a more formal
setting and decorum are important to the performance of decision making responsibilities that can
affect the property rights of applicants and concerned citizens.
A formal setting with an established agenda and adherence to rules of order helps to ensure
procedural due process where citizens’ requests and concerns are received and considered
respectfully before a decision is made. A very informal setting with interruptions and multiple
conversations would make it difficult to establish a clear record of the Commission’s decision-
making process. Without a clear, detailed record of the meeting, it would be difficult to defend the
Commission’s action on appeal or in other litigation.
Two years ago, the Commission instituted a Pre-application Meeting for the purpose of discussing
an application with a committee of Commissioners in an informal manner before the application
is filed. Those pre-application meetings are informal and all applicants are encouraged to request
such a meeting, even if it is not required.
Staff is not in support of any change to this section.
V. A Order of Agenda
All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the
topics and cases in the following sequence:
1. Roll Call.
2. Finding of a Quorum.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
4. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness.
5. New Certificates of Appropriateness.
6. Other Matters.
7. Adjournment.
Page 32 of 39
This request is from Staff. This would change the By-Laws to the practice that is currently in
place. National Register nominations are heard before the Deferred and New Certif icates of
Appropriateness as a courtesy to the State because of the brevity of the items. The change would
be to add a new number 4 “National Register Nominations” and renumber the following items.
The amended text would read:
All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the
topics and cases in the following sequence:
1. Roll Call.
2. Finding of a Quorum.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
4. National Register Nominations.
5. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness.
6. New Certificates of Appropriateness.
7. Other Matters.
8. Adjournment.
Staff is in support of this change to this section.
V. E 6b Reconsideration
b. Reconsideration.
No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property shall be considered if a
former application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by
the Commission within a period of 12 months preceding the application, except for cause
and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. If the
Commission decides to rehear a case it will require legal ad, notice to owners, etc., as
required for new application.
If an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property embracing the same
property or a portion thereof has been previously denied by the Commission or withdrawn
by the applicant, the Commission shall not grant a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant
to an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for such property unless a material
change has been made by the applicant, which change is clearly designated by the
applicant in the application, in the proposed erection, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on such property or portions
thereof from that contained or proposed in the previous application(s) previously been
denied by the Commission.
This issue has been raised by Commissioners and citizens alike, namely what is the definition of
a “material change.” A definition could be written for this term but the first paragraph above is the
most important in this discussion. For any item to be reconsidered, the Commission must
unanimously approve that it is, in fact, a material change by a vote of all members present before
it can be reconsidered. A definition of the words “material change” could be a moot point if the
members did not agree to reconsider an application.
A list of criteria in the definition could be helpful for Staff and the Commission to determine if it is
a material change: design, materials, footprint, orientation, etc. or by referencing the 11 design
factors. Discussion was also had on changing the word “material” to “substantial’ or another word.
Page 33 of 39
Adding a definition in the By-Laws that would be referenced in the Guidelines was also noted as
a possibility. The question is, are all of the design factors equally important when considering if
something is materially different enough. Is detailing of the same significance as setback, height,
and mass? Is changing the exterior materials sufficient enough to reconsider an application? How
many factors need to be addressed to make it a different application? What makes one application
to alter a house materially different from the previous application that was denied?
A definition of material change could be require a material change to a majority of the eleven
design factors. The factors are: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Scale, Massing, Entrance
Area, Wall Areas, Roof Area, Facade, and Detailing. There are definitions in the ordinance that
are repeated in the Guidelines for these factors.
The By-Law change would be to add a new definition of "material change". An additional change
would add the words “which have” that would further clarify the meaning. The additional text would
be added as a third paragraph and would read:
b. Reconsideration.
No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property shall be considered if a
former application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by
the Commission within a period of 12 months preceding the application, except for cause
and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. If the
Commission decides to rehear a case it will require legal ad, notice to owners, etc., as
required for new application.
If an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property embracing the same
property or a portion thereof has been previously denied by the Commission or withdrawn
by the applicant, the Commission shall not grant a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant
to an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for such property unless a material
change has been made by the applicant, which change is clearly designated by the
applicant in the application, in the proposed erection, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on such property or portions
thereof from that contained or proposed in the previous application(s) which have
previously been denied by the Commission.
For the purpose of these By-Laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision
to a design that has revised a majority of the design factors as listed in the municipal code
under Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d). Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and Massing.
Staff is in support of this change to this section.
V. E 7a Reconsideration
7. Withdrawals.
An application which has been advertised for public hearing may not be withdrawn by the
applicant except as follows:
a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal of an application must be submitted in writing
at least five working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing.
Page 34 of 39
This change was proposed by the Commission. Staff added this to be consistent with the
proposed change to section V. E 6b Reconsideration. A similar provision is included in the
Planning Commission’[s and the Board of Adjustment’s by-laws. It was placed there for the
courtesy of the public. If a request for withdrawal is submitted before the hearing, Staff can notify
the public in advance. The HDC can chose to approve or deny the request for withdrawal if it is
made at a hearing. This change would eliminate the need for additional votes to waive the By-
Laws and then to pass the deferral.
.
The amended text would read as such:
a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal may be submitted prior to the date of the
advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing.
Staff is not in support of this change to this section.
V. E 7d Reconsideration
7. Withdrawals.
An application which has been advertised for public hearing may not be withdrawn by the
applicant except as follows:
a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal of an application must be submitted in writing
at least five working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing.
b. The request for withdrawal must state the reason for the withdrawal.
c. The applicant’s request for withdrawal must be approved by a majority vote of the
Commission members present.
d. If the application is withdrawn, the same application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year.
This change has been raised by Commissioners and citizens alike. Staff added this to be
consistent with the previous proposed change. See analysis in V E 6b above.
The proposed text would be read as follows:
d. If the application is withdrawn, the same application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year. For the purpose
of these By-Laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision to a design
that has revised a majority of the design factors as listed in the municipal code under
Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d). Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and
Massing.
Staff recommendation is forthcoming.
V. E 8a Reconsideration
8. Deferrals.
Page 35 of 39
An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred
only as follows:
a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant
(1) The applicant’s request for deferral must be submitted in writing at least five
working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing.
This change was proposed by the Commission. A similar provision is included in the Planning
Commission’s and the Board of Adjustment’s by-laws. It was placed there for the courtesy of the
public. If a request for a deferral is submitted before the hearing, can notify the public in advance.
The HDC can chose to approve or deny the request for deferral when made at a hearing. This
change would eliminate the need for additional votes to waive the By-Laws and then to pass the
deferral.
This change would eliminate the need for additional votes to waive the By-Laws and then to
pass the deferral.
a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant
(1) The applicant’s request for deferral may be submitted in writing prior to the
date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing.
Staff is not in support of this change to this section.
V E 10 Precedents
10. Precedents.
No action of the Commission shall be deemed to set a precedent. Each item docketed
shall be decided upon its own merit and circumstances attendant thereto.
Change to this section was recommended by a citizen. The Commission stated at the meeting
that the By-Laws do not need to be changed. They already state the language that was requested.
Staff is not in support of any change to this section.
V E 12 submitted materials
12. Submitted Materials.
All materials, written, graphic or otherwise, presented to the Commission for consideration
shall become the possessions of the Commission for a period of 90 days after the
Commission’s action. In the event that legal measures contesting the Commission’s
decision are taken within this time period, said materials shall remain in the possession of
the Commission until such time as these legal measures are exhausted
In fifteen years of staff memory, only once has an applicant asked for a presentation board to be
returned. Any item that has been submitted to the Commission as an exhibit when it considers
whether to approve or deny an application should be a part of the record. Large format items
presented at meetings will need to be copied or digitized to become part of the record. This may
not be occur immediately after a meeting.
Page 36 of 39
Staff is not in support of any change in this section.
V E 13 Ex-Parte Communication
Currently, there is no language in the By-Laws concerning ex-parte communication. See the
above analysis for a discussion of ex-parte communication.
A citizen asked a question about communications that are given to staff. Our current practice is that
written correspondence that is received by Staff, prior to the distribution of the agenda, is sent
along with the agenda. Correspondence that is received after the agenda is distributed is given
to the Commissioners at the agenda meeting.
The following final text is proposed to be added in a separate paragraph to be numbered 13.
13. Ex-Parte Communication. In the event a non-Commissioner discusses a matter which is
to come before the Historic District Commission with a Commissioner, that Commissioner
shall disclose the conversation and the contents thereof to the Commission on the record
in a timely manner. Commissioners shall forward all ex-parte written communications to
staff for inclusion in the record and shall do so in a timely manner.
Staff is not in support of the addition to this section.
The following comments by citizens were recommended for review by the Commission. These
are not items that can be addressed in the By-Laws and have not been included in this review.
· Can ex-officio members of the Commission vote on items heard by the HDC? They
cannot per Sec. 23-97 of the City Municipal code, A.C.A. § 14-172-206. Commission;
membership, Sec. 2-110 of the City Municipal code, and A.C.A. § 14-47-120. City
manager; powers and duties.
· The By-Laws do not clarify whether the HDC functions as a quasi-legislative or quasi-
judicial body.
· Should the By-Laws be placed on the website? The By-Laws are available upon
request in electronic or printed copy. Staff surveyed and the vast majority of
Commissions do not place their by-laws online.
· The procedures of administrative appeals should be defined. This should not be stated
in the By-Laws. This is addressed by the city ordinance and state law.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 9, 2020
See individual sections under Staff Update dated March 9, 2020 in this document for all
recommendations.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2020
Mr. Minyard stated that a new handout was given to the Commissioners in the agenda meeting
that has a full markup set of the By-Laws and has changes in red letters. The Staff report has
excerpts instead of the full text. After discussion tonight, a clean version and a marked up version
will be given to you to vote on a later date. Staff added some items to the Staff report to have the
Commission discuss. Ms. Latimer interjected that Chair Jeremiah Russell wanted to add a section
to require the By-Laws to be reviewed every three years.
Page 37 of 39
Chair Russell asked if anyone wanted to have a discussion on any of the items.
A discussion was held on Article V E 6 b concerning the proposed definition of material change.
Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that the material change. The term material is used a lot in the legal
realm and the Supreme Court has made a ruling in what the term means. In that context, any
change to one factor alone would be a material or substantial change. The wording to change a
majority of the factors is not the best language to have, it is too narrow.
Mr. Minyard stated that Staff had put something down to start that conversation with the
Commissioners to determine the best language. He noted that two paragraphs up, it states that it
will require unanimous approval by the Commission to reconsider an item. In the past, Staff has
recommended that an item be reconsidered and it was voted to reconsider and to review the COA
on the same hearing.
Mr. Minyard stated that the same text appears in Article V E 7 d except under the Withdrawal
section. Vice Chair Holder stated that he would take a look at the language and draft something
that he would send to Staff for inclusion on the topic of material change.
On Article V E 7 a Chair Russell stated that he thought all of the Commissioners were okay with
the proposed language.
On Article V E 8 a (1) Chair Russell stated that he thought all of the Commissioners were okay
with the proposed language.
On 13 Ex parte Communication, Chari Russell read the proposed language. He also stated that
an email from Dale Pekar and summarized Mr. Pekar’s comments. Chair Russell asked if any
Commissioners had any comments on this or if it was acceptable the way it was worded now.
Vice Chair Holder stated that he liked the way it was written now. He added that a definition of ex
parte should be added to the By-Laws.
Vice Chair Russell suggested that a provision be added to review the By-Laws every three years.
With that schedule, you should be able to hit all commissioners with the rotation of Commissioner
terms. Mr. Minyard asked if the Staff could figure out where best to put that clause.
Sheri Latimer, City attorney’s office, stated that the final draft, presented in text form, would be
presented in April and the final adoption and vote would be held in May unless there are additional
changes.
Mr. Minyard addressed other changes that have been proposed by Staff and citizens with Staff
recommendations. The rest of the changes as stated in the Staff Report dated March 9, 2020
were presented.
Commissioner Christina Aleman commented on some typos in the draft. Staff acknowledged
them and will sure it is changed for the next draft.
Mr. John McCarty, spoke to the board about the War Memorial Golf Course. Chair Russell stated
that this was public comment for the By-laws and welcomed any comment on the bylaw changes.
Mr. McCarty continued to speak of the golf course. Chair Russell told him that Citizen
Communication will be at the end of the hearing and he could speak at that time. Mr. McCarthy
Page 38 of 39
stated that since it was not a crowded meeting, he wanted to speak now. Vice Chair Holder
continued that the agenda will be followed in order. It was repeated that the agenda will be
followed and it will not be long before Citizen Communication is on the agenda.
Page 39 of 39
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance
Two were issued this month. One at 618 Ferry for roofing and siding repair and one at 618 Rock
for roofing. Rock Street was an enforcement issue and has been resolved.
Guidelines Revision
Nothing to report.
Citizen Communication
Chair Russell invited the public to speak on any item that was not on the agenda. He did limit
each speaker to three minutes.
John McCarty, 4115 Old Oak Drive, spoke about the War Memorial Golf course that was on the
State Review Board meeting for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. He stated
that it was not on the agenda this evening. He spoke of conversations with Charles Blake, Mr.
Minyard and Chair Russell. He stated he imitated the nomination or the War Memorial Golf
Course as North Hills Country Club was nominated and got nominated. His cause is that it will
still be reviewed by the State Board on April 15t and if it is approved, it will proceed to national. If
the State approves it, then the question will be why the city did not approve it. He wanted to
express his concern and asked the Commission to approve the nomination of the War Memorial
Golf Course.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:40 p.m.
Attest
Chair Date
Secretar/Staff Date