HDC_10 06 2005DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5:00 p.m.
Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Members Present: Carolyn Newbern (Chair)
Marshall Peters (Vice Chair)
Wesley Walls (in at 5:05)
Job Serebrov
Kay Tatum
Members Absent: None
Deputy City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Charles Bloom
Brian Minyard
II. Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
III. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Commissioner
Job Seberov to amend the agenda to move the approval of the minutes to the Other
Matters section of the agenda. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
a. November 2004
Commissioner Peters moved for approval of the Minutes as submitted by
staff. Commissioner Walls seconded. The minutes were approved with 3
ayes, 0 noes, and 2 abstaining. Gob Serebrov and Kay Tatum abstained.)
b. September 1, 2005
The September 1, 2005 minutes were not voted on and will be placed on a
later agenda following staff's corrections to the minutes.
1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: September 1, 2005
APPLICANT: City of Little Rock (Little Rock Police Department) Tim Heiple, Agent
ADDRESS: Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue, Little Kock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Construction of a new 1500 square foot police substation.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND
DESCRIPTION: The subject
property is located at the southeast
corner of Cumberland Street and
Capitol Avenue. The property's legal
description is "the west 50' of lot 1 &
the west 50' of the north 25' of lot 2,
Block 40, Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
Since the building is of new
construction it cannot be considered as
a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District until
it is at least 50 years old. The adjacent The property at Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Ave.
Paragon building is nearing that age.
This application is also undergoing subdivision application to subdivide the lot and establish
an access easement. The application will be heard at the September 29, Planning
Commission hearing in order to subdivide the property and allow for setback variances.
Additionally, the applicant has applied for the October 13, 2005 hearing to recognize the
remainder of the site as a parking lot. The reason for the setback variance is because the UU
zoning classification has specified setback requirements for this portion of Capitol Avenue
be a minimum setback of 25 feet and no parking allowed in the 25 foot setback. The
applicant has indicated a lesser setback and requested parking spaces in that setback.
1
ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue
ANALYSIS:
There are several criteria related
to this case in the District's
Guidelines. The Design
Guidelines for new construction
of commercial buildings is
similar to that of new residential
structures. New buildings
should maintain, not disrupt the
existing pattern of surrounding
historic buildings. This calls for
new construction to be
compatible with existing historic J f �` Wasiewate, U� igr
structures on the street block. lj
Compatibility is calculated by �-j
evaluating shape; building scale; Paragon ®L
roof shape and pitch; orientation?�� `Y
to the street; location and
proportion of entrances, Surrounding properties. Properties north of Capitol and west of Cumberland
windows, porches, and are not in the district.
divisional bays; foundation height, floor-to-ceiling height;
and porch height and depth. Exterior materials and
material colors are looked at for compatibility as well. If
the exterior to be used is brick and mortar, and color tones
should be similar. New construction also requires amore
in depth look at the exterior characteristics of the building.
Details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, eave
depths, watercourses, corner boards, etc. should be similar
to those of surrounding properties. The ultimate goal is to
ensure that new construction is compatible with the
commercial neighborhood.
This specific property is located at the northwestern edge
of the district in an existing parking lot. In the immediate
area there are no contributing structures to the historic
district, although the Paragon building is less than ten years
River Cities Travel Center.
2
ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue
away from qualifying. Northeast of the application is the River Cities Travel Center which
was constructed within the last five years. The
proposed design will have a lightly sloped entrance
located on the hard corner of Capitol and
Cumberland and will be primarily glass. The
remainder of the building's exterior will be a stone
/ brick combination with glass located higher up
on the facade. Even though the window, rock,
and brick arrangement may not be in character with
most contributing structures in the neighborhood,
it would compliment the River Cities Travel Center
and emphasize its institutional use. The proposed
roof design will have a clay the material and will be
similar in pitch as nearby pitched roofs (River
Cites Travel Center).
The adjacent Paragon Building.
The building is next door to the Paragon building, which may soon be considered a
contributing structure in the district and is an example of Modern architecture. The overall
massing and size of the proposed building could compliment the existing Paragon Building
because of its limited height and smaller scale. The new building construction should not
detract from the Paragon building. If a larger or taller building were built on this site it could
overshadow adjacent buildings in the district.
The original application indicated a six-foot high, 20-foot long wooden fence on the
Cumberland Street side. The applicant has indicated that this fence will now be a wall
matching the stone material of the building. The applicant has also indicated an extension of
the wall will extend westward along Capitol Avenue screening part of the parking area.
The applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on this site with a primary purpose of
providing parking for police vehicles. Typically parking lots are to be located in the rear of
buildings within the historic district. Since its orientation is on the hard corner the proposed
parking area will use existing parking spaces, improvements could seem consistent with the
guidelines. Furthermore, the proposed parking spaces are to be used by police officers and
their visibility could have a positive influence on the surrounding neighborhood.
A pole-mounted sign will be located on the corner of the building at the corner of
Cumberland and Capitol. This pole- mounted sign may be illuminated at night and will
identify its civic use. Since this project is located at the edge of the district and in an area of
predominately modern construction, this sign should not have a negative affect on the
district's character.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION:
At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application as filed pending approval by the Planning
Commission on September 29, 2005 and October 13, 2005; and obtaining all necessary
permits relevant to the placement of the sign.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: September 1, 2005.
The applicant has requested a deferral to the October 6, 2005 Historic District Commission
Hearing. Staff supports this request. Commissioner Serebrov made a motion to defer the
item to the
October 6, hearing. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion carried 4 yes, 0 no, and 1
absent.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff,
made a presentation to the commission.
Tim Heiple, representing the applicant noted the different applications that are connected
with the substation. He then made a presentation concerning the new substation. It will be
a 1500 square foot building and will be manned for extended hours. The building is on the
property line on the north and west side. A cut stone will be on the front of the building
and the roof may be slate tile, instead of clay tile, based on cost.
Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about screening of the property. Mr. Heiple noted that
there would be a 6 -foot tall wall on both sides to screen parking and storage areas.
Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the height of the wall at the Travel Center.
Mr. Heiple responded that it was about 4 -5 feet tall.
Police Chief Stewart Thomas, of the Little Rock Police Department commented that he felt
the design was positive.
There were no persons present for public comment and no additional commissioner
questions.
A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner
Marshall Peters. Commissioner Job Serebrov seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0
noes and 0 absent.
Mr. Thomas commented that the substation would allow for more foot patrols for a larger
area from I-30 to MacArthur Park.
4
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: October 6, 2005
APPLICANT: Charles Witsell
ADDRESS: 1011 S. Scott Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Install handrail.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at
1011 S Scott Street. The 1988
architectural survey identifies this
building as a "Contributing"
structure to the district. It is
considered Queen Anne Residence
and was constructed in c 1880.
The Queen Anne style was
popularized in the late 19th century
and featured an asymmetrical floor
plan with extensive exterior detailing,
including various building materials,
textures, and colors. Exterior wall
surfaces were often rich mixtures of
brick, wood, stone, and wood
shingles cut in various patterns.
Large wraparound porches with
milled trim — columns, brackets,
balusters, and fretwork —are usually
present on the main facade. Gables
include decorative verge boards and
other trim. This home has numerous
elements of the Queen Anne style
including the asymmetrical floor plan,
and decorative verge boards.
The property at 1011 S Scott Street.
ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1011 S Scott Street
ANALYSIS: The applicant is currently undergoing restoration of the home and will be
doing work to install a railing on the porch, and a handrail along side the steps. Pictorial
evidence in the 1978 Architectural Survey indicates that a railing were originally located on
the front porch.
The applicant has supplied a detailed plan indicating the addition of railings, and latticework
to the exterior of the home. The porch balusters to be used are 3/4 inch thick White Poplar
and are copied from a 19`h Century Builders Materials catalog. These balusters will be
painted to match the house. The design guidelines indicate that new construction and
elements should be able to be differentiated from the original building. In this case the
applicant is restoring elements original to the Queen Anne Style. The proposed porch
balustrade handrail will be redwood, 2 inches high by 4 inches wide. This design is also from
the previously mentioned handbook. The footrail are 1 inch by 4 inch and beveled so they
shed water. Additionally the applicant has indicated that lattice panels will be installed over
openings in the foundation. These will be attached to blocking that is attached to the brick.
(See applicant provided exhibits for additional design details.)
Additionally staff has checked to see if residential building codes require the presence of the
railing. Since the elevation difference between the porch and ground is less than 30 inches
staff feels that any special requirements may not be warranted. Staff's opinion on this matter
does not exempt the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits or waivers.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution,
there were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as filed.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff,
made a presentation to the commission.
Commissioner Kay Tatum stated for the record that she lives across the street from the
applicant. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked if she had any financial interest in the application.
Her answer was no.
Charles Witsell, the applicant, made a presentation to the committee. He is adding a handrail
to the front porch of the house and latticework under the porch as screening. The codes
state that no handrail is necessary, so the historic height of the handrail is not a factor. He
continued that the house was a duplex and they had converted half of the house into an
artist studio. The restored the exterior in about 1991 or 1992 and received their COA at that
time.
2
ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1011 S Scott Street
Adding the balustrade will add character to the structure, stated Mr. Witsell. The style
proposed is a vernacular style, not a "high" style. He showed a photo of the house with lots
of trim on the bargeboards, which would lead to believing that there was an accompanying
decorative railing on the porch. He then showed the commission the profile for the flat
band sawn railing that was proposed. A small discussion followed.
There were no persons present for public comment and no additional commissioner
questions.
A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner
Wesley Walls. Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0
noes and 0 absent.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
DATE: October 6, 2005
APPLICANT: Frieda Tirado
ADDRESS: 504 East 6th Street, Little Dock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Enclose a wrought iron enclosure on the south entrance.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at
504 East 6th Street. The
property's legal description is
"Part of Trapnall Block in
Stevenson's Addition to the City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas: described as:
Beginning on the North line east
of 6th Street at a point which is
260 feet West of the centerline of
Sherman Street; run thence West
on the said North line of East 6`h
Street a distance of 60 feet; then
North at right angles 124 feet;
thence East at right angles 60
feet; then South 124 feet to the
point of beginning. EXCEPT a
strip off the east side 1 1/2 feet The property at 504 East 6th Street.
wide."
The building is a c 1920's Craftsman style apartment house and is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style
became the most common architectural style in America in the early part of the 20th century
and often coupled with the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized
by irregular plans with low-pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers.
Windows are double hung-sash with six vertical lights in the top sash and a single light
bottom sash. In many examples, rafter ends and knee braces are visible below.
1
ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street
This building has been involved in previous COA applications which has resulted in the
demolition of an accessory building, construction of a paved parking area, reconstruction of
a porch overhang, removal of inappropriate window shutters, and the painting of the
exterior.
This application is to allow for the addition of an iron enclosure over the front entranceway
of the building to provide for added security.
ANALYSIS: The design guidelines list several items that are relevant to this case. Most
notably are the door design guidelines. Historically the Design Guidelines have always
viewed the primary facade as being the most important element of the structure. Presently
the front entrance is set back in the building four feet and covered with a portico. The inner
door has five vertical lights and a three light transom.
The design guidelines have specific guidelines relating to the installation of security doors.
stating that security doors "should not be located on the primary facades" and should be
"full-view, without ornate or decorative grill work." Additionally graphics indicate
examples of acceptable and unacceptable security door designs.
NO NO YES
Storm and security dears should not obscure or conceal the entrance.
Excerpt from the Design Guidelines
While this is not a security door there are commonalities. This iron enclosure obscures the
front door and architectural features, as does a bad storm or security door. The applicant
has indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be 5 feet wide by 9 feet tall. It will be
divided into two "sections," one on the top (2 feet by 5 feet), which will have a half circle
ornamental iron pattern, and the bottom (7 feet by 5 feet), which will have a vertical pattern
of ornamental iron bars. These bars our 1/2 inch in diameter. The applicant has indicated
that the door will be model # 13-155-3 and made by King Architectural Metals.
The proposed iron design does not reflect any of the architectural features of the door or
transoms. It is a totally foreign design element being introduced to a contributing structure.
2
TEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street
The round sunburst does not match the transom, the proposed iron gate is a double hung
door that does not match the existing single door behind.
The applicant has also indicated that the proposed
iron enclosure will be located flush with the current
entryway opening creating a non - weather resistant
entranceway at the front entry. Craftsman
construction styles on buildings of moderate means
were based off of simplicity and typically did not
feature separate or elaborate entryways. Since the
iron enclosure will be located flush with the front
facade, it will be visible from multiple angles on
East 6th Street. The proposed iron enclosure will
obscure the front door and entranceway.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND
REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends denial of the application because it
will obscure the entranceway, the front door, and is
not in character with adjacent Craftsman apartment
buildings.
Existin g front door.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff,
made a presentation to the commission.
Commissioner Marshall Peters stated that he had a conflict of interest in this item and would
recuse himself.
John Jerrard, representing the applicant, made a presentation to the commission. He stated
that the main entrance for the complex is on the west side. The front door (the one facing
south) enters into one apartment only. People stay there on stormy nights. The enclosure
would prohibit sleeping and ringing of the doorbells. He continued to state that he wanted
to make the design light and open.
Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the materials. Mr. Jerrard stated that it was
iron, with five inch spacing of the vertical bars.
There were no persons there for public comment.
3
TEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street
Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she thought that the enclosure was not compatible.
She asked if there were other enclosures. Mr. Jerrard answered that regular security doors
would not solve the problem. The solution that they have proposed does not fit the
definition of a security door. Commissioner Job Serebrov stated that there was a problem
and that he could sympathize with the problem.
Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded the position stated by Commissioner Serebrov. He
was concerned that the design of the doors does not match the "Craftsman" building, but
continued that the portico on the front was not a craftsman detail. He continued that this
crosses the border form storm door to bars on windows.
Commissioner Carolyn Newbern pointed to the graphics included in the agenda in the
analysis section. She stated that they conflict with the design and asked where it was to be
installed. Mr. Jerrard stated that it would be installed behind the columns six inches back
from the front of the brick.
Commissioner Walls asked where the door was in relation to the enclosure. Mr. Jerrard
answered that the door sits back four and one half feet. Commissioner Newbern asked how
wide the enclosure was. Mr.. Jerrard answered about five feet.
Commissioner Walls asked if the door would be used. Mr. Jerrard commented that it would
probably not. Commissioner Tatum asked if it had to be operable for fire code issues. Mr.
Jerrard answered no. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an operable doorbell.
Frida Tirado, owner of the project, interjected that the people will sleep and sit there.
Commissioner Newbern asked if other options were explored, for example full view? Mr.
Jerrard stated that they have not explored those options.
Commissioner Walls asked what was driving the sunburst design. Mr. Jerrard stated that it
gave the entrance some flair. Commissioner Walls continued to ask the spacing of the bars.
Mr. Jerrard answered that it is five inches. Commissioner Walls wondered if the bars could
be further apart and still meet code. Commissioner Serebrov stated that the cross bars will
discourage vagrants.
Commissioner Newbern stated that the design does not relate in any way to the door. Mr.
Jerrard stated that he does not know of any door that would relate.
Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an iron fence in front of the site. The answer
was no.
There was no additional public comment made ( Frida Tirado is an owner of the project).
Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would like a simpler design.
Staff Brian Minyard interjected that the bylaws state that an application can be deferred to a
later agenda and that would give the applicant time to resubmit revised drawings.
4
Commissioner Walls stated that there was a solution to the problem but this was not it.
The applicant asked the committee to defer his application in order to resubmit revised
drawings.
A motion to defer the application until the November 11, 2005 agenda to revise the
drawings was made by Commissioner Serebrov. Commissioner Walls seconded and the
motion passed with 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal. Commissioner Peters stated for the record
that he recused because of financial dealings with the applicant.
5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Three.
DATE: October 6, 2005
APPLICANT: Little Rock Parks and Recreation, Bob Callans
ADDRESS: 503 East 9th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA REQUEST: Construct a memorial honoring those whose served in the Korean War
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at MacArthur Park in the MacArthur Park Historic District.
The application area is a small portion of the park that is set back over 300 feet from both
McMath Avenue and East 9th Street.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has indicated
that this will be a memorial
honoring Americans who
served in the Korean War and
provide education about the
war to visitors. The plaza will
also provide a comfortable
place for quiet reflection.
The design guidelines do not
specifically indicate any
specific details when it comes
to the construction of new
memorials. Historically,
memorials have been erected
in numerous locations around
the country to memorialize
one event or another and this
event would be no different.
Memorials often times gain
historical significance in the
Proposed location of the Korean War Memorial
1
ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial
future because of their meaning and how they commemorate the past.
At the present time MacArthur Park is home to numerous memorials predominantly located
on the south and east sides of the complex. These memorials don't necessarily detract from
the architectural significance of the MacArthur Park Military Museum because their
individual locations do not obstruct its views from the north, east, or west. The applicant
has indicated that this monument will be located north-northeast of the Arsenal building
adjacent to an existing grove of trees.
The applicant has indicated that the memorial will have a circle -like footprint approximately
60 feet in diameter. Within this footprint there will be a bridge traversing a faux water
feature surrounded by an arbor. The applicant has indicated that they intend for the arbor's
colLUnns to match columns on the nearby Arsenal building. The memorial will feature
brick rumbled pavers and a wall of names that will be constructed out of granite. The
applicant has also indicated that benches at seating areas will be located in the nearby area in
order to facilitate visitors.
Staff believes that this memorial will complement the other memorials in the area and
increase the civic value of the park. Staff also feels that the construction of the memorial
will not detract from the nearby Arsenal building or the character of the historic district.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution,
there were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project as filed with
the following condition: If the scope of the project changes drastically they revisit with staff
to see if an additional appearance before the Commission is needed.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. The area of impact was
defined previously and those properties were notified. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff, made a
presentation to the commission.
Bob Callans, representing the applicant, stated that the location had moved and the size was
reduced to sixty feet in diameter. This project is in conjunction with a Sister City in Korea.
He went on to discuss the octagonal shape of the arbor, the bridge in the center of the
design that is symbolic of the bridge of freedom. It will contain a listing or the Arkansans
killed in action as well as sponsorships and organizations that support the project. The arbor
is for shade of the reflection area. The paint color will be the same as the paint color on the
porch of the arsenal.
Mr. Callans continued that the plants used would be plants that are common to Korea and
Arkansas. The memorial bands in the center symbolize the 38th parallel. The flagpoles will
be of the same height as opposed to as shown on the model.
2
ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial
Commissioner Newbern asked of there were any present to make public comment. Doyle
Herndon stated that he was in favor of the project.
Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about the faux water feature. Mr. Callans stated that
the sunken area would have a drain to a low area off site but within the park. The sunken
area will have glazed tile on the bottom.
Commissioner Peters continued and asked where the plaque wall was located. Mr. Callans
stated that the orientation was that the plaque walls would be on the northeast side of the
memorial. Commissioner Peters asked if this was the last commission that the project had
to appear before. Mr. Callans stated that this was the last commission.
Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lighting. Mr. Callans stated that there was uplighting
of the flagpoles, arbor under the bridge and landscape lighting. Mr. Callans verified that
landscape lighting was path lighting, and uplights on the plants. Commissioner Peters
mentioned past discussions about light pollution. Commissioner Walls stated that this
would not be a contributing structure and that the lighting would be okay.
Commissioner Tatum asked about maintenance of the project. Mr. Callans stated that the
foundation would set up an endowment for maintenance. They would also try to coordinate
with the master gardeners. The maintenance will be for the memorial and surrounding areas.
Commissioner Tatum asked about transients. Mr. Callans stated that the maintenance
contract would clean up the site on a regular basis.
Mr. Herndon stated that the city will do the maintenance or they will contract it out.
Commissioner Peters made a comment about the crime at the Shell gas station at 9th and I-
30. Commissioner Serebrov asked about security issues. Mr. Herndon answered that the
police presence is increasing in the area. Mr. Serebrov commented about the possibility of
signs "at your own risk ".
Commissioner Newbern asked of the height of the plaque wall. Mr. Callans stated it was ten
foot high and would have granite on the front and brick on the back. Commissioner
Serebrov asked about the color of the brick. Mr. Callans said it would be similar to the
arsenal. He also continued that the arbor would be made of a composite material like the
library has. The supports would be aluminum. Mr. Callans continued that there would be a
ten -foot clearance for the arbor, maybe an eleven and one -half foot clearance
Boyd Maher, of AHPP, asked if it obscured the Arsenal Building. Mr. Callans stated that it
would not obscure more than the trees that are already there. Commissioner Walls stated
that it probably would not obscure. Mr. Maher reminded the commission that this was an
important building in the district.
3
ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial
There was a question about a blank page in the agenda. Brian Minyard, Staff, read aloud the
missing page. It was the second sheet of the cover letter to the commission.
A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner
Peters. Commissioner Serebrov seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0
absent.
4
IV. Other Matters
a. USPS Presentation
Richard Taylor of the United States Postal Service made a presentation to the commission
about renovations to the exterior screen wall on the western half of their property.
The wall will be cleaned and sealed to remove the minerals that have stained the wall and
prevent it from further leaching. The original design did not waterproof the top of the wall;
therefore water has been seeping into the center of the wall.
The proposal is to remove the precast coping and place a metal cap on top of all sections of
the wall. This will be a pre - finished steel of a slate color. It will be compatible with the
building and weathered wrought iron. It will simplify the walls look. They will also clean the
brick on the building.
b. Enforcement Update
504 East Sixth Street: Caroline Apartment
There is not evidence that the applicant removed that item from the application. There was
an x drawn thorough the painting item on the application but was not initialed by the
applicant and staff. This action is to be dismissed.
All other items remained the same. Unsure
1419 Commerce St
Debra Weldon stated that the building permit process should be used to enforce this item.
The stop work order is based on the building permit. Staff Bloom asked if the owner walked
away sand did not do any more construction, how would we enforce on that? Mr. Bloom
stated that it had been dormant with no construction since early 2005. Ms Weldon said that
she would send an email to Mr. Minyard outlining the points to include in a letter to the
applicant. A new building permit to replace the expired building permit will trigger a COA to
be filed with this committee. Mr. Minyard stated that a letter would be sent to the owner.
Commissioner Peters asked for a date to be included on the enforcement issues to show
how long each had been under enforcement.
420 East Ninth Street
A letter had been sent to the owner stating that a COA needed to be filed for the air -
conditioner units. The letter stated that the previous application had been withdrawn and
they need to be re-filed. The property sign has been removed at this time.
1301 Cumberland:
1
A discussion ensued about enforcing this case and the commission considered this to be the
priority case to enforce. A motion was made to reinforce the motion made at the last
meeting to enforce on this item.
501 East Seventh Street
The old gates have been removed. Several letters have been sent to the owner and the
contents of the letters were discussed. Commissioner Serebrov asked if a letter from the
attorneys' office would be better. Commissioner Peters asked a copy of the letter be sent to
the real estate commission office. Staff said that the letters were sent regular mail, not
certified mail since we did not have a budget for the HDC.
Boyd Maher stated that his office got a call for some changes at 904 Rock Street for artificial
siding and windows. Staff stated that they would go by and investigate the item.
c. Design Guidelines Discussion
Commissioner Walls has done lots of drawings, Mr. Bloom has done formatting, and
progress has been done. Mr. Minyard will be working on this. Chairman Newbern
mentioned some items that may have not been included in the last draft. Those items will be
addressed in the next draft, Mr. Minyard stated.
d. Staff Organization Update
Charles Bloom stated that he had taken a position with the City of Laramie, Wyoming
effective mid October.
Brian Minyard discussed optional meeting dates for the commission and the commission
directed him to pursue the first or second Mondays of each month at 5:00 for the hearing
dates.
A discussion arose about subsequent emails and public meeting announcements.
Meetings should be set up by staff at the request of the Chair. A commissioner may ask Staff
to ask the Chair to call a meeting. Public notice required two hours notice of two or more
commissioners meeting in one location. Those notices must go to Scott Carter in public
information.
All information to be distributed to the commission should go to staff and then be
distributed to the commission distribution list. Information sent to the commission is okay,
asking questions and soliciting response from the commissioners is not. For your
consideration email to be discussed at a later publicized meeting is okay. Commissioners may
always ask questions of Staff and request tasks.
Chair Carolyn Newbern bestowed the "Arkansas Traveler" certificate to Charles Bloom.
2
Mr. Minyard suggested that the Historic District hearing be switched to a different date so
that it did not conflict with the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, River Market,
Board of Directors, etc. The first, second and third Mondays are suggested. The calendar
should be set of the upcoming year by the end of the year. No commissioners stated that
Mondays were impossible. Boyd Maher stated that no other commissions meet on Mondays.
Mr. Minyard went through the days of the week and the possibilities of each. It was
discussed that the second Monday of the week would probably be the best.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned.
Z//- '�V5-
Approved Date
3