HDC_01 07 2021Page 1 of 11
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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, January 7, 2021, 4:00 p.m.
William Grant Still Ballroom, Robinson Center
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six 6) in number.
Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell
Vice Chair Ted Holder
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Christine Aleman
Members Absent: Lauren Frederick
City Attorney: Sherri Latimer
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Walter Malone
Jamie Collins
Citizens Present: Lena Gabrahana
Susie Taylor
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Robert Hodge made a motion to approve the November 5, 2020 minutes as
submitted. Commissioner Christine Aleman seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
There was a discussion on voting procedures during a virtual meeting. Director Jamie Collins
clarified that the ordinance stated it needed to be a roll call vote with audio and video verification
of each members vote.
Page 2 of 11
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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. A.
DATE: January 7, 2021
APPLICANT: Lena Gabrahana
ADDRESS: 900 S Rock Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-026
COA REQUEST: Siding and Columns
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 900 S Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “North 15’ of Lot 11 and all
of Lot 12, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built c 1880. The 2006
survey form states: “this one-story Queen Anne style
house has a corner turret, decorative brick work at the
chimney and larger dormer set back from the wall below.
A Craftsman influenced porch covers most of the front.”
It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
Siding and Columns were added and changed without a
COA by the HDC. This work includes changing the siding
in the front gable and around the front door plus adding
two columns to the front porch.
RECENT ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On August 8, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new roof.
On September 13, 2012, a COA was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new fence and
driveway.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 11
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF
THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF
INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The applicant changed two items on the
facade of the house. They have changed the
siding in the front gable and around the front
door plus added columns to the front porch.
Siding change: It is unclear when the house
was sheathed in vinyl siding, it is not stated in
the files. The addition of vinyl siding is not the
issue of this application. The applicant either
removed or covered over the stucco in the
gable with a stained wood siding. This
treatment was also completed on either side
of the front door where vinyl siding was
removed or covered over. This is a change
in materials and appearance that requires a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Columns addition: The wooden columns were added to the front porch at the same time. These
are solid 6x6 posts. According to the application, these posts are “two small cosmetic wood
beams to have a clean esthetic.”
These changes to the structure are required to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness before a
permit is issued for the work. No permit was obtained for this work prior to the work being
performed. This work meets the threshold to require a building permit.
On page 27 of the Guidelines, it states: “New alterations should be designed to respect the original
design character of the building. Analyze the structure to determine which elements are essential
to its character, considering mass, size, scale, and proportion to the lots. Don’t try to make it
appear older (or younger) in style than it really is. The genuine heritage of the District should be
expressed.”
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Front facade as of December 9, 2019. Front facade as of September 14, 2020.
Page 4 of 11
Columns were added where they would not typically be installed. The application states they
were cosmetic, not structural. If there were structural issues with the span on the porch, it could
have been repaired without changing the overall appearance of the porch by modifying the
structural aspects within the box beam.
Historic alterations, like the Craftsman inspired porch, have historic value. The craftsman porch
on this house is a duplicate of many other porches in the city. Adding additional columns in the
location that they were added is not appropriate for a Craftsman porch either.
The painting of the brick columns are not an issue in this item. The brick has been painted for a
number of years prior and repainting a previously painted surface would be considered
maintenance.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 6, 2021
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and stated that all notices have been
properly executed. He noted the contacts that have been received from the QQA and the
MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association since the item was distributed.
Lena Gabrahana, the owner and applicant, stated that she had worked closely with the
neighborhood association on this application. She had taken other structures in the area into
consideration when she made the changes to the structure. She said that she was unaware that
she needed a building permit for the work. She continued that some of the items on the house
are historic and some are not. She tried to get replacement siding, but that type is no longer
made so it was down to replacing instead of repairing.
Ms. Gabrahana said it was not feasible at this time to replace all of the siding on the house. She
chose cedar siding based on another house nearby. (Editor’s note: That house is new
construction.) She said she did not remove anything historical, just the vinyl siding that was added
later. She added the cedar beams (posts). She could not find a historical photo of the house and
did not know if beams (posts) were there originally. Beams did not compromise structure and are
purely cosmetic.
Chair Jeremiah Russell asked the applicant if there was still wood siding under t he metal siding.
Ms. Gabrahana said there was some wood siding under there. Some of it was rotted. Ms.
Gabrahana stated it was not and the estimate was for $70-80k to replace with wood. Chair
Russell stated that artificial siding, whether metal or vinyl traps moisture behind the siding and
rots the wood.
Chair Russell continued that the cedar posts are not appropriate to the style of the porch. If this
had come to the commission as a proposal, the application for the posts would be rejected out of
hand.
Commissioner Amber Jones asked when the siding was placed on the house. Mr. Minyard stated
it was sometime before 1984 when the commission started hearing cases. The 1977 survey
Page 5 of 11
photo is hard to tell if it is siding or not. Mr. Minyard added that the issue today is the removing
of the siding and replacing with other materials along with the addition of the posts.
Commissioner Christine Aleman asked if the siding was articulated at the door. It was a choice
to do wood or cedar accents. Ms. Gabrahana said that the siding was cracked all around the
house and especially around the door.
Ms. Gabrahana asked the Commission what typed of posts to add. Chair Russell said that nothing
was there originally. Commissioner Jones stated the decorative element was the short brick post.
Ms. Gabrahana asked what decorative element should be there. Chair Russell stated that nothing
should be there. Posts are inappropriate on the craftsman porch.
Commissioner Jones asked about the photo in the staff report. It was noted to check the dates
on the photos.
Chair Russell commented that the discussion should be whether or not the posts are appropriate
and if the wood is an appropriate alternative to the artificial siding.
Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that the porch was not originally craftsman. He continued that the
posts are inappropriate. Craftsman porches in the Quapaw Quarter are common. The
improvements should reinforce the Craftsman porch. The wood in the gable is also inappropriate.
Adding columns are confusing styles with the two styles that are already there
There was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed. Mr. Jamie Collins, Director
of Planning and Development, stated that she had stated she was for the application.
Chair Russell stated that he disagreed with Vice Chair Holder on the wood only. Simply stained
and not painted is okay. If posts were removed, he would be in favor the application. The
Commission does not deal with color of materials.
After requested, Ms. Gabrahana modified her application to remove the posts. Ms. Latimer stated
that the other option was to leave her application as is, and if it failed, she had the right to appeal
the decision with an attorney in circuit court.
Again there was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed.
Ms. Gabrahana asked about the process to remove her property from the historic district since it
is not all original. Chair Russell stated that would not be an option. Mr. Collins stated that the
house is contributing, even if it was not, it would still be in the district. The review would be
required. Sherri Latimer, of the City Attorney’s office, agreed.
Ms. Gabrahana confirmed her amendment to remove the posts from her application. Commission
Jones made a motion to approve the application as amended and Chair Jeremiah Russell
seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes, 3 noes (Holder, Hodge and Jones) and 1
absent (Frederick). Ms. Latimer confined that it takes 4 positive votes for an item to pass.
Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the
application. Chair Russell voted to approve as amended saying the cedar was acceptable for
Craftsman and Victorian houses even if it is not common. The guidelines state that natural
materials are favored over artificial materials.
Page 6 of 11
Vice Chair Holder stated it was inappropriate and cedar was not used especially in the pediments
and something not common in Queen Anne or Craftsman in this region.
Commissioner Robert Hodge did not believe that cedar as presented is appropriate adding that
this moved the house into a modern style. The house already has a Queen Anne and Craftsman
style and adding a third style is not appropriate. He added that this might be fine for houses
outside of the Historic District.
Commissioner Jones stated concern that this raw cedar siding is not seen in the Historic District
on Craftsman houses in Little Rock. The material should be painted if it was to remain. She
continued that this application could send confusing signals to new neighbors as to what they
could do to the houses. She wished she would have known to get her permit.
Commissioner Aleman stated she was in favor of the application. Her house has vinyl on three
sides. Replacing the vinyl with wood is appropriate when the vinyl is cracked. Commissioner
Mark Hinson said he was a fan of the cedar siding but could vote to approve with the posts
removed since the applicant compromised on removing the posts.
Chair Russell informed the applicant that the item failed and personally encouraged her to appeal
the decision.
Mr. Minyard started a discussion about expunging the vote to see if a different result occurred.
The discussion then focused on expunging and deferment to see if Staff could work out some sort
of compromise for the application with a meeting on site. Ms. Latimer stated that expungement
should be necessary and for cause and Vice Chair Holder interpreted it to mean that if the
Commission wanted to expunge, that was cause enough. Mr. Collins recommended that
expungement be for the applicant to defer for Staff to work with the applicant.
Commission Hodge made a motion to expunge the vote due to confusion of the applicant, cost of
appeal. He clarified at the request of Chair Russell that it included to allow Staff and the Applicant
to find a work around to the problem so that a successful application could be submitted by the
applicant. It was noted by Chair Russell that this would be a commission deferral and costs of
notification be borne by the Commission. It was seconded by Vice Chair Holder. The motion
passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the application at the Commission’s request to
the next public hearing for more information and it was seconded by Commissioner Aleman. The
motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
Mr. Minyard stated that he would get in touch with the applicant to schedule a time to visit on site
about the alternatives.
Page 7 of 11
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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 c.
DATE: January 7, 2021
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District wide
COA REQUEST: Pre Application Review process
This item was originally a discussion item under Other Matters on the May 28, 2020 agenda. Staff
is asking the question of whether the DRC should be performed by Staff only. If not, should the
meetings be held when and where they are now? Should the membership in the DRC be
expanded to all the members? DRC members likely will have more input in an item than non-
DRC members and may have more information than non-DRC members, this could be seen as
an issue.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 28, 2020
Pre-application review discussion:
Mr. Minyard stated that the Director of Planning and Development Jaime Collins would
address the commission on this item.
Mr. Collins addressed the Commission. Other boards and commissions that the Planning
and Development Department staffs have changed their procedures. The department
has become more technical in its review and in its ability to share information with
applicants and the Commission. There is a question as to whether the Design Review
Committee can review the documents and comment without a formalized meeting.
Vice Chair Holder stated he was not sure what the question was. Mr. Collins stated that
since the Commissioners were not voting at Design Review Meetings, in lieu of these
meetings, staff could state if the application was complete and it could then be processed
at the next level. He wanted to bring this item to the Committee for a dis cussion. This
could be done on an as needed basis.
Vice Chair Holder stated that the initial reason these meetings were held was to allow
applicants to informally present their proposals. He stated that the meetings have been
helpful. He agreed that the meetings could be held in a different manner, but upheld their
usefulness. Vice Chair Holder stated that the purpose of discussing the eleven factors
was not to determine whether if the application was complete but to discuss the design.
The committee members do not make any decisions in the meetings. He does not know
how they would do it any better than they do it now.
Page 8 of 11
Chair Russell stated when the Design Review completed, it outlines the factors and the
committee’s comments. Being able to sit down with an applicant and discuss their
application, is a useful activity. Mr. Collins stated that with the required public notice and
recording of meetings, the Design Review meetings could be held in a different manner.
Nothing has to be decided today and he just wanted to open the discussion. The Planning
Commission changed its Subdivision Committee meetings to a different style of meeting.
That meeting used to occur after an application had been filed to check for code
compliance.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked Mr. Collins to clarify. He stated that the Design
Review meetings were to clarify that everything was complete after the application was
filed, but could be held in a different format. Vice Chair Holder stated that these meetings
were held before the application was filed with only a concept and that the committee
could reply via electronic means. Formal notices have to be sent when the item is officially
filed and placed on an agenda.
Mr. Minyard stated that Staff has always given prospective applications feedback on items
whether it be Historic District, zoning, etc. They were given pros and cons of their
applications and instructed how to get through the process. The purpose of the Design
Review meetings was to allow the Commissioners to participate in the review. Mr.
Minyard stated the Commission they would add this item to the agenda for the next month.
Chair Russell asked that we poll the individuals that have participated in the process and
get their thoughts.
STAFF UPDATE: January 7, 2021
The Design Review Committee (DRC) has met six times since the vote to initiate was taken in
February 2018. The projects were:
407 E 10th for a rear yard shed
407 E Daisy Bates for a single family house
501 E 9th for the Arkansas Arts Center redesign
10th and Rock for condominiums
314 E 6th Street for awning repair
1414 Park Lane for a single family house
Staff contacted the architects that had participated in the reviews. Staff has not received any
responses to the email survey as of this writing. The email was also sent to QQA and CZDC.
QQA responded and that response is included at the end of this report.
From the October 9, 2017 HDC minutes:
“The purpose of the pre-application meeting would be to have a public meeting
(meaning that the press is alerted that a meeting will be held with two or more
commissioners present) with the applicants, the applicant’s architects, designers,
commission members, and staff to discuss upcoming projects on a conceptual level or
preliminary design level. This has the possibilities of several positives. 1) The applicant
can save design money and time by discerning what aspect of the project is of concern
to the commissioners, 2) This can save multiple hearings on the same project that are
Page 9 of 11
required by edits and redraws, and 3) This can build goodwill between the commission
and the public by listening and working with the applicants in an informal environment.
“The negative of this would be 1) the tendency of commissioners to design the project
for the applicants, and 2) Some applicant may not be ready for their project to go public
at the time of the pre-application meeting.”
The creation of the DRC was discussed at the October 9, November 13, December 11, 2017
hearings. It was adopted at the February 12, 2018 hearing. At the October 2017 hearing, Frank
Barksdale and James Sullivan of AMR Architects spoke in favor of creating the committee.
Patricia Blick of the QQA also spoke in favor. Tommy Jameson, Kwendeche, and the QQA sent
in emails to support of the DRC.
One modification has been made to the DRC. The original consensus had a time limit per item.
It was anticipated that there could be multiple items at one meeting. That has never happened.
On October 14, 2019, that was changed to remove any time limit. The DRC felt that they would
know when the conversation was becoming unproductive and the Commission agreed.
The initial reason the DRC was formed was not to see if an application was complete. The DRC
meets before an application is filed. It was to engage in dialogue between the Commission and
the applicant before filing to reduce deferrals and to build good will with the citizens. Staff alerts
the press to the meeting time and location. The dates are published in the adopted calendar.
Staff is asking the question of whether the DRC should be performed by Staff only. If not, should
the meetings be held when and where they are now? Should the membership in the DRC be
expanded to all the members? DRC members likely will have more input in an item than non-
DRC members and may have more information than non-DRC members, this could be seen as
an issue.
Staff has always met with potential applicants about upcoming applications. Staff cannot speak
for the Commission nor can staff vote on pending applications. The DRC added direct input from
Commissioners on items before they were filed. This happens in a conference room around a
table which has a different feeling than a Board Room. The DRC meetings are scheduled on a
Friday afternoon with three commissioners and Staff. They are scheduled in a different location
than the hearings.
An alternative would be for the DRC to have their meetings immediately after the monthly hearings
in the same room. Would the applicant think the comments were binding if the meeting was held
immediately after the public hearing? Would it be different with only three members instead of all
seven? Another alternative would be to expand the committee from three to seven members. No
changing the DRC is an option.
All comments from the DRC are non-binding and no votes are taken on the proposals at the DRC
meetings.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 6, 2021
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission with topic to be discussed.
Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Mark Hinson shared that he had gone through the process and it is critically
important to have some way of doing it. He continued it was good to meet and get input of what
was allowed. He received alternate opinions of projects from the DRC.
Vice Chair Ted Holder commented that as a member of the committee, he thought it was
beneficial. The committee is more that checking if it is a complete application. It is important for
new construction. The only change he could see would be to have the entire commission on the
committee.
Commissioner Christine Aleman stated that it should be kept. It is beneficial but can get bogged
down with too many opinions.
Commissioner Robert Hodge said it was not a good idea for the full commission to be on the
committee. He believes it could be less of a design review committee and more of a let us design
your house before you file an application with more opinions. It is helpful to guide people to a
better design by discussing the design factors.
Commissioner Amber Jones stated that it should be kept the way it is.
Chair Jeremiah Russell generally agrees thus far with the comments. He remembers when
Commissioner Hinson and his wife came to the Design Review Committee before he was on the
Commission. He thinks the DRC has been helpful but it would not be beneficial for the entire
commission to be on it. Even with the three, the press is notified of the meeting. It is the first
opportunity for an owner to present ideas and see if the commissioners see any red flags. The
DRC is organized with the architect, the QQA representative, and one other. There may be other
more experienced members on the commission, but the committee as organized, provides a
detailed viewpoint. The DRC can accommodate the applicants for now with no change and thinks
it is working. Later on, there may need to be some tweaks.
Vice Chair Holder added that the Commission did away with the time limit earlier.
There was no vote taken on changing the DRC, thus it remains with no changes.
Page 11 of 11
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission
Certificates of Compliance
HDC2020 -034 11/9/2020 507 E 7 I Street roofing, soffit, and Gutters
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:24 p.m.
Attest:
Chair Date 2021.03.11
Secretary/Staff Date