Loading...
HDC_03 02 2023March 2, 2023 Little Rock H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T C O M M I S S I O N 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 AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2023, 4:00 p.m. Willie Hinton Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 W. 12th Street I. Roll Call Members Present: Chair, Amber Jones Vice Chair, Christina Aleman Mark Hinson Tom Fennell Members Absent: Jonathan Nunn Amber Haugen Scott Green Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff Sherri Latimer Walter Malone Kevin Tarkington Alice Anderson Citizens Present: Brandon Lee Estelle Matthis Pamela Powell Missy McSwain Brian Minyard Daniel Jimenez Russ Matson Ed Sergeant Arma Hart Jackie Bauhn Clifton Smith IV Patricia Blick Andrea Lewis March 2, 2023 Citizens Present (cont.): Jude Fogleman Jill Fogleman Adam Fogleman Emily Reed Amy Dase II.Finding a Quorum Quorum was present being four (4) in number, with three (3) absent. Ill. Minutes 1.October 6, 2022 Minutes (citizen amendment request) Ms. Miles requested her statement addressing Item One, proposed Local Ordinance District, was neutral. Commissioner Aleman made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The motion passed by a voice vote. 2.December 1, 2022 Minutes Commissioner Aleman made a motion to approve the minutes. Chair Jones seconded. The motion passed by voice vote. 3.January 5, 2023 Minutes Chair Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The motion passed by voice vote. Chair Jones announced a deviation from the agenda to hear the fifth item, HDC2023-001, ahead of the National Register Nominations as a deferred item from February's cancelled meeting. Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to the By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval of an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right to defer the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant, Brandon Lee, if he would like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Lee said he would like the application to be heard at this meeting and not deferred. 2 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 NAME: Rear & Side Yard Privacy Fence LOCATION: 609 S Rock Street, The Butler House OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Brandon Lee 609 S Rock Street, Little Rock, AR, 72202 Figure I. 609 S Rock, Little Rock, AR 3 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing CURRENT ZONING: UU -Urban Use A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 609 S Rock Street. The property's legal description is "Lots 3 and 4, Block 151 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Context The subject property has a single­ family, one-story Queen Anne home, built c. 1888, that is Contributing to the Macarthur Park Historic District. The most recent National Register survey form, 2007, PU2978, describes the structure: "one story Queen Anne style house exhibits many typical details of this style including textured gable, cutaway bay window with decorative woodwork, turned wood porch supports and decorative spindle work frieze panel below front gable." Sometime before 1992, the attic was adapted to second story living space. The historic home sits on the northern half of a double lot and has a large side yard. The large side yard was once the site of a frame, one-story duplex that existed in the district pre-1913 and was demolished sometime before 1939, Figure 2. 609 S Rock location in MacArthur Park Historic District. 4 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 according to the Sanborn maps. The two lots were consolidated sometime before 1992. Recent/Previous Action In 2015, a COC was issued to Sarah Oliver (aka Sara Braswell) for attic vents. On June 12, 2006, a COA was issued to Dr. Thomas and Sara Braswell to construct a double bay garage, covered walkway, new rear screened porch, new sidewalk, and new fencing along the north property line. On April 10 1998, a COC was issued to Jean Anne Phillips for a 6 foot privacy fence along the rear property line abutting the alley. On January 4, 1996 a COA was issued to Jean Anne Phillips for the restoration of the home as a private residence. '"' .___------------ ...... On May 11, 1995 the structure was Figure 3. Properties surrounding 609 Rock Street. denied a COA for demolition. On March 27, 1992 the structure was deemed unsafe by Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department (then Department of Neighborhoods and Planning). No other actions were found. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application request to construct a rear and side yard six-foot, wood privacy fence and two new gates. One double gate on the rear of the property and one single gate along the fence facing the street. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property currently has a six-foot wood board privacy fence along the east (rear) and south (side) property lines and the back section of the north property line. A 36-48-inch wood picket fence exists parallel to the front property line, 5 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 setback to the southeast corner of the house. See Attachment A-site photos and Figures 2 and 10-fence site plan. Fences to be removed are shown in red. There also exists a small section of 4-foot-tall wood fencing between the northwest corner of the house and the north property line. Figure 4. Side yard of 609 Rock showing existing fencing. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. 6 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 E. ANALYSIS: The proposed fence is a six-foot privacy fence made of wood boards, trim, and posts that mimic the existing. It will be stained a natural wood color. The rear fence will be set back 8 feet from the rear property line and will begin at the south elevation of the detached garage and run 58 feet to the south property line. It will then run along the south property line 83 feet. From there it will run 56 feet across the side yard to the south elevation of the house. This section of the fence that will face the street is setback halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure and sits more than 45 feet back from the front property line. Two gates are proposed. One double gate on the rear of the property and one single gate along the fence facing the street. Figure 5. Proposed fencing site plan. 7 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 There are no historic fences on the subject property_ There is a section of a wrought iron historic fence on the adjacent property within the front yard setback. The proposed privacy fence will not physically impact or visually impede views of the adjacent historic fence, nor the adjacent historic structure, a Craftsman apartment built c. 1937. Figure 6. Wrought iron fence section al 619 Rock Streel. Section VII. A. 3. Fences and Retaining Walls of the Design Guidelines state: "Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building." (pg. 58) "Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72" tall. The privacy fence should be setback from the front fa<;ade of the structure at least hatfway 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." Staff believes the proposed fence meets the Design Guidelines. 8 March 2, 2023 DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions: 1.Obtain a fence permit. 2.Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit. 3.Gates will be a maximum height of 72 inches. G. COMMISSION ACTION February 2. 2023 The Little Rock Historic District Commission February 2, 2023 meeting was cancelled and this item was deferred due to inclement weather. F. COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023 Ratzlaff, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones invited Brandon Lee, applicant, to make a presentation. Mr. Lee said staff had covered the application request and he didn't have anything to add. Chair Jones opened Commission discussion and said that the application appeared by the book to the Guidelines. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to approve the application with staff recommendations. Commissioner Hinson seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). 9 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 NAME: University Park Historic District LOCATION: Roughly bounded by Arthur Drive, West 12th Street, and South Hughes Street OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Consultant: Amy E. Dase, Senior Historian Stantec 8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100 Austin, TX Figure 7. University Park Historic District aerial view with boundary shown. 10 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 AREA: approximately 54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 150 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "University Park Historic District" HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing WARD: 6 CURRENT ZONING: Various: R2 -Single-Family, R4 -Two-Family, and R5 Urban Residence A.BACKGROUND Location The subject property is Roughly bounded by Arthur Drive, West 12th Street, and South Hughes Street. Figure 8. University Park local ion in relation to surrounding historic districts. 11 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 Context The nomination of the University Park Historic District is a project funded by the African American Civil Rights Grant Program awarded to the City of Little Rock in 2020, administered by the National Parks Service. B .PROPOSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the University Park Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A. Areas of significance are Community Planning and Development and Black Ethnic Heritage. Period of significance is 1967-1976. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: The Nomination states: "The University Park Historic District in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, is locally significant under Criterion A in the areas of Community Planning and Development and Black Ethnic Heritage, with a period of significance from 1967 to 1976. The start date marks platting and construction of this residential subdivision's street and infrastructure systems, which were funded, planned, and improved as part of a federal urban renewal project. The Little Rock Housing Authority administered subsequent land sales, and private residential development began in 1967 with more than 146 single-and multiple-family dwellings constructed in the neighborhood. Private contractors built one or more housed designed in the Ranch, Contemporary, and Nee-Period Revival Styles. University Park was a desirable neighborhood where most residents were Black families, many with prominent leadership roles in education, commerce, politics, and civil rights. The district represents and unusually successful and unexpectedly antithetical example of an urban renewal project where owner-occupants sustained a Black presence in western Little Rock with a collection of single-family dwellings that retains its physical and historical integrity." 12 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little Rock Historic District Commission's role is identified: "B. CLG involvement in the National Register process 1. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports 13 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report." The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination of the University Park Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and the submission of the nomination as written to the State Review Board. G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023 Ratzlaff announced that this nomination is the result of a multi-year grant project funded by the African America Civil Rights Grant Program, administered by the National Parks Service, Department of the Interior, awarded to the City of Little Rock in 2020. Ratzlaff stated that her predecessor, Brian Minyard, was the person who primarily managed. Mr. Minyard wrote the grant application and worked with the University Park neighborhood and consultant team. Ratzlaff also shared that the nomination research process was unique in that Stantec, the consultant team, was able to conduct six oral history interviews with original families and homeowners of the neighborhood. Stantec, represented by Emily Reed and Amy Dase, attended the meeting virtually in order to make a presentation to the Commission about the nomination of the University Park Historic District. Amy Dase and Emily Reed presented to the Commission. Commissioner Fennell said this was a great nomination and with so many notable inhabitants. Fennell said the neighborhood has always been strong since development. Chair Jones said it was exciting to see this nomination forward. Jones invited public comment. Mrs. Pamela Powell, University Park resident and University Park Neighborhood Association President, spoke to the Commission. Mrs. Powell said she wanted to thank all of the people who helped with this nomination initiative, specially Walter Malone, City Planning Manager, for getting the project started, Brian Minyard for all of his work the first years of the project, and Hannah Ratzlaff for finishing the project. She also thanked Emily Reed, Amy Dase, and others on the Stantec team. She thanked the neighborhood association's historic committee, including Arma Hart. Mrs. Powell said the biggest struggle throughout the project was choosing residents to interview and coordinating the interviews during the pandemic. She read a list of residents on the initial list to interview, mentioned by family name: 14 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002 Walker, Anderson, Mays, McHenry, Burns, Norman, Porter, Brown, Ausbie, Smiths, Brookes, Jones, Ziegler, Reynolds, Johnsons, and Grants. Mrs. Powell extended her thanks again to those who had interviewed informally and formally for the nomination research. She said she moved to the neighborhood in 1979 and is still considered a newcomer among so many founding families still present and active in the neighborhood. Emily Reed thanked Mrs. Powell and said it could not have been done without her. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the University Park Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Hinson seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). Ratzlaff said the recommendation of approval would be provided to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program to be included as a supporting document for the State Review Board this April. If approved at the state level, the nomination would see final review by the National Parks Service and could be officially nominated this summer. 15 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 NAME: Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase LOCATION: 104 South Pulaski and 1302 and 1304 West 2 nd Street OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Figure 9. Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase image. Existing boundary shown in blue. Proposed increase hnundarv shnwn in red. 16 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 AREA: 0.61 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase" HISTORIC STATUS: Previously "undetermined" CURRENT ZONING: Capitol Zoning -Capitol Area Residential A. BACKGROUND Location The subject properties are located at 104 South Pulaski, 1302 W 2 nd Street, and 1304 W 2nd Street. Figure IO. Location of !he Railroad Call Historic District in relation to surrounding hisloric districls. 17 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 Context The Railroad Call Historic District was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1997 and only included the three structures at 108 S Pulaski, 112 S Pulaski, and 114 S Pulaski. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the boundary increase of the Railroad Call Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion C. Areas of significance are Architecture. Period of significance is 1906. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: The Nomination states: "The Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase is being nominated under Criterion C with local significance for its examples of Folk-Victorian cottages that were built to house railroad workers in the vicinity of the Missouri Pacific Depot in Little Rock. The Railroad Call Historic District is located one block to the east of Little Rock's Union State (NR listed June 17, 1977), and was a popular and convenient neighborhood for railroad workers to live in. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Block 335, where the district is located, illustrate that the houses on the east and south sides of the block were very similar in their design, and the Folk Victorian design of the houses clearly depict the same history and significance as the properties in the original district." 18 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO l i + : I I ·--- --J@: : . 6 W:. MARKHAM • 19 L FILE NO.: NR2023-001 Fi ure I 2. Section of Sheet JO, Sa born Fire Insurance Company i\,/r,p, 19 I 3. March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little Rock Historic District Commission's role is identified: "B. CLG involvement in the National Register process 1. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 20 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 7.The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report." The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination of the boundary increase of the Railroad Call Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion C and the submission of the nomination as written to the State Review Board. G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones asked if there was an applicant present to make a presentation for the nomination. There was none. Jones asked what initiated the AHPP National Register team to expand the district. Ratzlaff shared that the expansion is primarily the result of Alex Crawford, an intern at the AHPP at the time, and his research of the structures surrounding the district. Ratzlaff said she believes the community project became the subject of his thesis for his B.A. in History. The original district only included three homes on the block because they were all owned by the same property owner and the original nomination was initiated by that property owner. Jones said she believed John Jarrard owned the homes at that time and put together the nomination. Commissioner Fennell agreed. Fennell said he first took interest in the small district as a little pocket within the area when he was a member of the Capitol Zoning District Commission ("CZDC"). He said that part of the mission of the CZDC is to preserve existing historic resources around the Capitol and the Governor's Mansion and he imagined the AHPP-the state agency that houses CZDC-is supportive of the expansion. He said expanding the district is in step with the CZDC mission, especially this block of resources. He said he is happy to see more structures being recognized and that the nomination will support the rehabilitation and maintenance of the resources [in reference to tax credit eligibility]. He said there are only little pockets of historic districts in this neighborhood and critical mass is important in preventing future deterioration and loss of historic resources near the Arkansas State Capitol. Fennell said this was a great nomination and he'd like to see it replicated. 21 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001 Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the expansion of the Railroad Call Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). 22 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 NAME: William Laporte Building LOCATION: 1924 Commerce Street OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Adam Fogleman Common Ground Opportunity Fund LLC 620 E 161h Street, Little Rock, AR Figure 13. William Laporte Building at 1924 Commerce. 23 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 AREA: 0.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "William Laporte Building" HISTORIC STATUS: Eligible CURRENT ZONING: R4 -Two-Family A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 1924 Commerce Street. The property's legal description is "Lot 2 of Block 402, Lincoln and Zimmerman Addition, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR." Figure 14. Location of the William Laporte Building in relation to surrounding historic districts. 24 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 Context In 2009, the structure was surveyed for historic significance and found that it was eligible for listing to the National Register. In 2014, the structure was on the Board of Directors agenda for demolition for October. It was removed from the agenda in consideration of potential historical significance. Following work done by the owner to secure the structure and make necessary stabilizing repairs, it was removed from the UV list. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the William Laporte Building at 1924 Commerce Street to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and Criterion C. Areas of significance are Architecture, Ethnic Heritage/Black, and Commerce. Period of significance is 1899-1973. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The structure is currently vacant. See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: The Nomination states: 'The building at 1924 Commerce, constructed in c. 1899/1900, is significant as an example of a late-nineteenth century/early-twentieth-century commercial structure with Italianate detailing. It is particularly noteworthy for its builder, William Laporte, who was a successful African American plasterer and bricklayer that returned to Arkansas in 1870 after having escaped slavery at the age of twelve. Laporte's endeavors were not limited to the construction industry, as he also served on the Board of Little Rock's first black-owned bank, Capital City Savings Bank, and as an alternate delegate from Arkansas to the Republican National Convention in 1884, 1888 and 1892. In 1872, he was elected as the Secretary of the Greeley and Brown Club formed in the City's Second Ward. In 1887, he unsuccessfully ran for a seat on the Little Rock City Council, Ward 3. As a significant and rare building built by an African American bricklayer, and as an unusually elaborate commercial building for its area of Little Rock, the Laporte Building is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C. 25 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 The Laporte Building is also being nominated with local significance under Criterion A for its importance in the commercial history of its neighborhood in Little Rock. When it was built, it was meant to be operated as a grocery store, and it's a use that the building had well into the twentieth century. The grocery operation in the building was consistent with the type of grocery iocated in neighborhoods across Little Rock and the United States, prior to the advent of consumer selection of groceries, such as in chain stores like Piggly Wiggly and Safeway. The building remained in use as a grocery store until the late 1950s and continued to be used for commercial purposes into the 1970s." Figure I 5. Section of Sheet 213, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map for Little Rock, 19 I 3. 26 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NFR2023-003 Figure 16. "Building on Commerce Street in Little Rock, 1982", courtesy of UA Little Rock Center/or Arkansas History and Culture. Figure 17. "Wealthy, ·egro Died Friday." Arkansas Democrat, 17 May 1913, pg. 1. - taken from nomination footnote. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little Rock Historic District Commission's role is identified: "8. CLG involvement in the National Register process 1.Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 27 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report." The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State Review Board meeting. 28 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination of the William Laporte Building at 1924 Commerce Street to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and Criterion C and the submission of the nomination as written to the State Review Board. G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones asked if there was an applicant present to make a presentation for the nomination. Mr. Adam Fogleman, property owner and author of the nomination, spoke to the Commission. Mr. Fogleman said the William Laporte Building and the nomination has been a labor of love. He said he has been a resident of the Pettaway neighborhood for a decade and had walked by this building many times admiring it and was happy to be involved now in its rehabilitation. He said the purchase of the surrounding lots and development of the 21 st Street commercial district hinged on this property and its history and character. Jones said it's amazing that the structure has so much of its original architectural details. She remembers in 2014 and before driving by this building just to make sure it was still there since there were often demolition concerns. She said she appreciates and applauds the partnership of owners for their dedication and efforts to keep this resource here, and Mr. Fogelman's passion in uncovering the fuller narrative of Laporte's life. She said the structure's history is so significant and felt like no one would notice if the building was gone because it has not received the recognition it deserves. Mr. Fogleman said he became so interested in the research of the structure that he identified almost the full genealogy of the William Laporte and his life. Jones said when reading the nomination it was astounding to see the amount of history still retained and embedded in the building. Mr. Fogleman shared a moment from Mr. Laporte's life he found incredible: when Mr. Laporte was travelling back to many of the places he had been in his life, he went back to St. Louis, and there he ran across the wife of his former slave owner who had fallen on hard times. Mr. Laporte chose to take care of her and charitably gave her enough money for her to live comfortably the rest of her life. Mr. Fogleman also shared that this structure was one of the last remaining structures related to Laporte in Little Rock. Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the William Laporte Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Fennell seconded and said the structure is additionally significant in terms of the history of brick masonry in Little Rock. He said Little Rock was once known for its high quality brick masons. These masons frequently went to other cities, like St. Louis, for their work. The Little Rock masons were always respected, and a large number were 29 March 2, 2023 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003 Black masons. He said there is still a very strong Black mason community that exists in Little Rock. In addition to this unique significance, there are very few remaining brick neighborhood grocery stores in the city that once served the area. For these reasons and more, Fennell said, he seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). 30 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 NAME: Addition of Entrance on side of structure LOCATION: 805 Sherman Street OWNERMUTHORQEDAGENT Russell H. Matson Matson, Inc. 501 McLean St, Bishop Anthony B. Taylor Diocese of Little Rock 801 Sherman St, Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202 Figure I 8. Rendering of proposed entrance al the Adoration Chapel al 805 Sherman Street. 31 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 AR EA: 2.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Non-Contributing CURRENT ZONING: R4A -Low Density Residential with a Conditional Use Permit A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 805 Sherman. The property's legal description is "South 300 feet of the east 290 feet of Block 3 of Johnson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR." The church property includes the entire block. Context The subject property was built in 2007 as approved by the Historic District Commission in 2006 (HDC2006-009) to serve as a new space for a library, classrooms, offices, labs, etc. The building is now being repurposed to house an adoration chapel and bridal room. There is no resource survey for the existing structure built in 2007. The existing structure replaced a rectory building that was built c. 1955. The rectory was demolished in 2006 for the construction of the new classroom building. The 2007 classroom building is a two-story brick structure with precast concrete details designed to be differentiated but compatible to the surrounding historic sites, primarily St. Edwards Church to the south and the "Benedictine Sisters House" to the north (which serves as church offices). Figure 19. Location of projec/ at 805 Sherman Street. 32 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 St. Edward's Church is an Independently Listed structure built by Charles Thompson c. 1901 in the High Gothic Revival ecclesiastical style. The Benedictine Sisters House, also referred to as the administrative building, is a Contributing structure built c. 1930 whose architectural style is eclectic and identified as Romanesque Revival in the 2007 survey forms. Recent/Previous Action In 2020, a COC (HDC2020-021) was issued to St. Edwards Church for structural repairs. In 2006, a COA (HDC2006-10) was issued to St. Edwards Church to install a new sign at the corner of Sherman and 9th Street. In 2006, a COA (HDC2006-009) was issued to St. Edwards Church for new construction. No other relevant actions were found within the past 10 years. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application requests to create an additional entrance on the southern elevation of the c. 2007 classroom building. This entrance will provide a separate entrance to the adoration chapel and bridal room from the forecourt/courtyard between the church and the chapel. C.EXISTING CONDITIONS: See site photos (Attachment A) and site plan (Attachment B). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed new entrance is part of a larger interior renovation project. The new entrance will be located on the south of the building, on the southern elevation of 33 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 a single-story section, facing a planned forecourt and the church (Figure 3). This section of the building projects about 10 feet south from the primary mass. The proposed project will create a recessed opening in place of, and the same width as, the two existing center windows shown in Figure 5 in Attachment A. The entrance surround will be precast concrete with chamfer edges on exposed corners and a recessed cross at the center of the lintel. A precast concrete wall niche will sit in the center of the back wall of the recessed opening. The base of the niche will align with the existing window sills on either side of the recessed entrance. The primary exterior masonry will be new brick and mortar to match the existing. A door will be installed on the interior of either side of the recessed Figure 20. I. Edwards Church property wi1h buildingf ootprinls and National Register s1ar11 · shown. Impacted e/evarion shown in red dashed outline.entrance. One door, to the bridal room, will not be visible from the public right of way. The second door, to the chapel, will be minimally visible. Both doors will swing out towards the niche and will be solid wood with thin vertical boards and no glass. The doors appear similar in design to the primary church entrance doors, however drastically simplified. A sloped awning/canopy will be installed above the entrance to match the other existing entrance awnings on the building. The awning will be supported by wood brackets that match the existing. A Phase 2 plan is shown in the submitted drawings to add a gable roof over the new entrance but is not being pursued as part of this application. In consideration of how this project is reviewed by the MacArthur Park Design Guidelines, staff believes the application is best examined by the design guidelines for new construction (Section V) and the rehabilitation guidelines for doors/entrances (Section Ill). 34 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 Section V. 1. h. "Commercial and Mixed Use Infill Guidelines: Wall Area" of the MacArthur Park Design Guidelines state: "Wall area means the vertical architectural member used to define and divide space including the kind and texture and exposure of wall sidings and trims, and the location, number and design of all window and door openings. Wall area refers to the proportion, rhythm, and scale of walls, their associated openings and their relationship to buildings within the area of influence." "In general, it is appropriate to: orient window and door openings vertically and symmetrically within a given wall area." The new construction guidelines are used here to assess what impacts the proposed alterations have on the 2007 previously approved new construction and whether these impacts would result in a structure that would still meet the guidelines. Section Ill. B. 1. "Doors: Screen; Storm and Security Doors" of the MacArthur Park Design Guidelines state: "If doors are added to an inconspicuous secondary or rear wall, they should be similar to the original doors considering solid to void ratio." Based on the relevant guidelines, staff believes the proposed entrance supports the compatibility of the building within the district and the church site and does not deviate from the overall character of the previously approved building. The proposed entrance is consistent with the proportion and rhythm of the wall areas of the structure; has minimally visible impact from the public right-of-way; and is compatible with the architectural details of the structure. Staff believes the solid wood doors to the bridal room and chapel are appropriate for the intimacy and function of the interior spaces and are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way. In this case, the doors do not need to be similar in solid to void ratio with the primary entrances doors of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtain a building permit. 2. Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit. 35 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003 G.COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023 Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to the By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval of an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right to defer the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant if they would like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Ed Sergeant said he would like the application to be heard at this meeting and not deferred. Chair Jones invited the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Ed Sergeant, project architect, spoke to the Commission. He said this project was primarily an adaptive reuse of the classroom space within the 2007 building. He provided a summary of the future chapel and bridal room. Chair Jones said the application seems to be straightforward and asked if the Commission had any questions for the applicant. Hearing no questions, Jones opened comment to supporters or objectors. There were no comments regarding the application. Jones made a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. Commissioner Aleman seconded and said that the proposed entrance was well placed and had a minimal and positive impact. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). 36 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 NAME: Replacement of Entry Doors LOCATION: 623 Sherman Street (including 615-619 Sherman & 608-612 E 7th St.) OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Daniel Jimenez Little Rock Turnkey Properties Memphis, TN 38119 Jamie Hoffman 315 Crystal Ct, Little Rock, AR 72205 Figure 21. Elsmcourt Apartments, 623 Sherman St, Lillie Rock, AR 37 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 AREA: 0.52 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing CURRENT ZONING: R4A-Low Density Residential A BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 623 Sherman. The property's legal description is "Lots 4,5, and 6 of Block 2, Stevensons Addition, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR." Context The subject property is the site of three two-story multi-family apartment buildings, built c. 1950. As a corner lot, two units face Sherman and one unit faces East 7th Street. A covered parking shelter sits at the rear of the site along the west property line barely visible from the street. The apartment units were surveyed as separate historic resources by street. The buildings at 623 Sherman and 615-618 Sherman are PU2818 and the building at 608-612 E 7th Street is PU2819. The structures are described similarly in the most recent National Register survey forms, 2007, PU2818: "standard twentieth century apartment building with brick veneer, steel windows and new hip-roofed porches. Some aspects of Colonial Revival style are apparent." The site was constructed sometime around 1950. The property is shown as vacant on the 1939 and 1950 Sanborn maps. In a 2004 staff report, staff notes that the 38 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 apartments "were built by the current owner's father and have remained in the family since 1949." Figure 22.1960's aerial of site. Recent/Previous Action In 2004, a COA (HDC2004-004) was issued to Jim Barre to install new hip roofs made of copper standing seam on the main entrances facing Sherman and 7th Street. No other actions were found. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application request to replace all front doors facing Sherman and 7 th Street. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Existing doors are interior rated doors composed of particle board. Doors are deteriorating due to their lack of durability and exposure to exterior elements. Each entrance leads to four interior units through a central staircase: two downstairs and two upstairs. See site photos (Attachment A) and site plan (Figure 14). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 39 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. E.ANALYSIS: The proposed replacement door for each entra nee is a fiberglass exterior rated door, smooth finish, with five small rectangular lites offset to the left. The glass appears to be textured in a scrolled profile frame. The product is manufactured by Therma-Tru Doors and is from their "Pulse" series of Mid-Century inspired doors. The applicant intends to paint the doors to match the final trim color, Sherwin Williams Urbane Bronze. Each entrance is flanked by wood sidelite panels original to the structure. The applicant plans to repair sidelites without alterations. Sidelites will be painted the same color as the trim. The replacement of entry doors is a project within a larger rehabilitation scope of work for the property. The full rehabilitation of the interior and exterior of the property is utilizing state Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits and has a received an approved Part 2 (Attachment B) and verification from Tom Marr, Federal Programs and Tax Credits Manager at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, that the doors are appropriate for the tax credit program (Attachment C). Section Ill. B. 1. "Doors: Screen; Storm and Security Doors" of the MacArthur Park Design Guidelines state: "Original doors and/or their entranceway surrounds, sidelights, transoms, and detailing should not be removed or changed. Replacement of missing original doors should be like or very similar to the original in style, materials, glazing (glass area), and lights (glass pane configuration.)" Section Ill. "Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation" of the MacArthur Park Design Guidelines state: "Replacement of missing features should have historic documentation; if not available, interpretations of similar elements in the area may be considered." (pg. 9). 40 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 The earliest pictorial evidence of the front doors are photographs from the Quapaw Quarter Association ("QQA") 1977 Architectural-Historic Inventory Cards (Figure 3 & Figure 4). Figure 23. Front facade of 623 Sherman, 1977, QQA. Figure 4. Front and south side facades o/615 Sherman, 1977, QQA . Figure 5. Front facade of 623 Sherman, 1988, QQA. Figure 6. Front facade of615 Sherman, 2007, AHPP survey form. The doors shown in these 1977 early photographs appear to be wood doors with three center panels and no glass. Photographs from the 1988 QQA survey show that at some point these doors were replaced with plain doors with no decorative features. Photographs from the 2007 AHPP survey forms show the same, or similar, plain doors. In 2004, hipped metal roofs were installed on the front porches. Apart from the doors and the porch roofs, very few alterations have occurred. 41 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 Considering the evidence shown in the 1977 photos, staff finds that the request for front door replacements is partially consistent with the Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The existing doors are interior rated and not original to the site and require replacement due to their lack of durability to exterior elements. The proposed replacement doors are not characteristic of the original doors in style, material, glazing, and lights. Figure 7. Proposed doors, Therma-Tru Echo style fiberglass. photo submitted by applicant. Figure 8. Proposed door held in front of entry opening, photos submitted by applicant. The proposed doors attempt compatibility with the architectural style of the apartment buildings through the wider mid-century style. However, the site's architectural features display symmetry, often found in revival styles of the era. Symmetry is evident in the steel window configuration and locations, central bay porches, entry sidelights, brick courses bordering the window above the porches, and hip roofs. The proposed doors would be the only asymmetrical feature on the building facades. A more compatible replacement option would be a door more similar in design to the one pictured in the 1977 photographs, or a replacement option that supports the architectural symmetry and revival style of the site. 42 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 Figure 9 and Figure 10 are examples of doors from Therma-Tru that either resemble the original doors or would be more compatible with the architectural style of the building. Staff finds that the proposed replacement doors are partially consistent with the guidelines and are a positive replacement in comparison to the existing interior rated doors. In light of the pictorial evidence provided in the 1977 photographs, staff would be more supportive of a replacement design that is more compatible with the architectural style of the site and similar elements of surrounding properties (see site photos in Attachment A). Figure 9. Therma-Tru Classic Craft Visionary Collection, 3 panel shaker. Figure 10. Therma-Tru Classic Craft Artissa Collection, lite 2 panel. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed replacement doors, with the following conditions: 1. Obtain a building permit. 2. Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit. 3. Replacement doors will fit the original opening. 4. Installation of replacement doors will avoid damage to surrounding architectural features and elements. 43 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023 Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to the By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval of an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right to defer the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant if he would like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Daniel Jimenez said he would like the application to be heard at this meeting and not deferred. Chair Jones invited the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Jimenez, authorized agent, spoke to the Commission. He shared with the Commission that when the applicants bought the property the condition of the interior had been fairly neglected and the renovation and improvements to the twenty apartment units is primarily focused on the interior. He said for this reason, a lot of the funding for the project is being dedicated to the interior. The applicants had found that the previous owner left five new exterior doors in the storage unit of the apartments. Mr. Jimenez said the found replacement doors would save them $4,000-$5,000 on the total project cost versus buying all new replacement doors. He said for this reason, the owners would likely want to use these doors if possible rather than buy new ones. He said he would like to try and see if the owners would be agreeable to using one of the staff recommended doors instead. Mr. Jimenez said they should have no problems meeting the other expectations in the staff recommendation. Mr. Jimenez shared that all other exterior work was focused on in-kind repairs to the brick masonry and aluminum windows. He confirmed they are using the state tax credit program for this project. Chair Jones said she did not think the proposed exterior doors submitted by the applicant were the most compatible doors for the specific architecture of the site, but she understood the desire to utilize the doors to make the rehabilitation more financially feasible. She said they were not too far from the wider architectural style of the site. She said she was okay with the proposed doors and appreciated that Mr. Jimenez would check with the owners to see if they would be agreeable to staff's recommendation of more compatible doors. Mr. Jimenez said he understood staff's recommendation and agreed with it, but also thought that the applicant's proposed doors would still be a significant improvement to the site. Commissioner Aleman said she is familiar with the property and the amount of work it likely requires, and that she appreciates the explanation of why the applicant wants to utilize the asymmetrical doors. She said the context helps her 44 March 2, 2023 ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004 balance some of the comments in the staff report. Commissioner Hinson agreed and said it makes sense for the applicant to utilize the inherited doors in this case. Chair Jones added that it is helpful to know that the state tax credit program has approved the doors and believes they are compatible enough. Jones made a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. Commissioner Aleman seconded. Ratzlaff asked for clarification on whether the motion included approval of both door options. Commissioner Fennell said he wanted to amend the motion to add that the authorized agent be able to talk with the owners and that the owners (1) provide a written denial of the staff recommended doors and (2) state that they want to use the door they currently have. Mr. Fennell said he recommends the three paneled shaker door which he believes is the most compatible. Jones asked if staff had talked to Tom Marr, the state tax credit coordinator, and if he would approve the other doors if they were chosen. Ratzlaff said she had confirmed with Mr. Marr and any of the three submitted and recommended options would be approved. Commissioner Aleman seconded the amendment to the motion. Ratzlaff restated the motion was to approve staff recommendation with the additional approval of the three -panel shaker door as an option, with the condition that the owner confirm with staff the denial of the three -panel shaker door if they chose to use the proposed asymmetrical door instead. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green). 45 March 2, 2023 IV.Other Matters 1.New Logo Ratzlaff provided an update on the new logo initiative and summarized past actions from previous meet ings. In November 2022, the commission considered applying for CLG grant funds for a new logo design. Commissioner Mark Hinson volunteered himself and his firm to design the new logo. Hinson is the Vice President of Creative Services with Mangan Holcomb Partners/Team-SI, a marketing firm and advertising agency headquartered Little Rock. Staff has worked closely with Hinson and his team from December 2022 to March 2023. As a result, staff and Commissioner Hinson presented six logo variations to the Commission. Ratzlaff shared that it has been a relief to have Commissioner Hinson involved and is grateful for his team's expertise. Following a concept­ focused meeting, Hinson provided staff with 30+ conceptual logos. From there, the team narrowed the options to five designs and then to one primary design with six color and detail variations (Figure 24). Figure 24. Logo Concepts from MHP. 46 March 2, 2023 Commissioner Hinson said the challenge was to develop a logo that would be reflective and inclusive of Little Rock's twenty-five historic districts and the existing historic resources across the city. Hinson explained that the outer border of the logo is inspired by stained glass and the links that go all the way around the logo are representative of the different districts that the Commission helps steward. He said the typeface for "Historic District" is classic and meant to be immediately recognizable. This is paired with a contemporary and simplified type face for "Little Rock" and "Commission". There are details of water droplets within the logo to represent the city's relationship to the Arkansas River. The inner boarder is different in each logo variation shown. They are on the spectrum of ornate, geometric, and minimal in design. Hinson said he and his staff wanted to show the Commission the basic logo in different details and colors so they could help narrow it down. Chair Jones said she liked the logo on the bottom right because it was cleaner and easier to read. Commissioner Aleman agreed. Jones said she liked the references to the river and the significance of a colorful logo. Commissioner Aleman jokingly asked if they were going to get branded merchandise with the new logo, like mugs. Commissioner Hinson said the shape of the logo, a circle, would lend itself easily to most products and mediums. He said they went for a shape that would work well with social media. Commissioner Aleman said she also pictured the logo in bronze and said the base design was versatile. She said her favorite variation was the bottom right logo. Ratzlaff said she felt Commissioner Hinson and his team hit the nail on the head with what she was aiming for with a colorful logo that better represented all of the Commission's duties beyond reviewing Certificates of Appropriateness, including its grant and nomination efforts. Ratzlaff said she is very happy with what Hinson's team has accomplished and she believes the logo is versatile and will translate well to monochrome and gradient designs where necessary, such as on a plaque or street sign topper. Ratzlaff asked the Commissioners if they had a preference between the cool and warm color schemes. The Commissioners present said they all liked the warm color scheme for its easy identification and nostalgia. Hinson said he could provide the favored logo design in the two color options to compare. Ratzlaff suggested that these final options be presented at the next meeting in hopes of having the full Commission present. The Commissioners agreed. Ratzlaff asked Brian Minyard, previous Planning and Development Department employee and HOC staff, if he would like to weigh in on the 47 March 2, 2023 logo change. Mr. Minyard said he stayed at the meeting following the University Park nomination review because he wanted to hear about this item on the agenda. He said the column [the existing logo] was the result of a mid-1980s contest. At this time, the main historic districts in the city were Governor's Mansion, MacArthur Park, and Marshall Square, but now the city has historic districts like Broadmoor, Downs, and, sometime this summer, University Park. He said ditching the column was good. The Commission —and the wider preservation field —is getting more mid- century nominations as the 1970s are becoming eligible for consideration for historic status. He said the column is not representative of what historic preservation is today. He said that Little Rock has historic sites that are different and diverse and not having a heavy column as the predominant image makes a lot of sense and is a good idea. Commissioner Hinson said he entered the 1985 logo contest and did not win. He was happy to have come back to assist in the new logo 35+ years later. Chair Jones said Hinson had really stuck it out since he built a new home in the historic district and now he's leading the design of the new logo. Commissioner Fennell said the existing logo reminded him of the column in the previous AIA logo (American Institute of Architects). He said he was supportive of the reasoning to update the logo because the Commission's responsibilities, and the shared historic assets of the city, are not just columns. Mr. Minyard agreed and said the city was more than Victorian, Colonial, and Craftsman sites. Hinson said that Ratzlaff and his team made sure to avoid utilizing a single or specific architectural element as the focal point since it would date the logo and not represent the diverse historical resources of the city. 2. Hillcrest Resurvey Update Ratzlaff provided an update on the Hillcrest Resurvey grant project. The consultant team, JMT, was on schedule and had completed the fieldwork and submission of ten draft Arkansas Architectural Resource Forms. The resurvey phase was on track to be completed in July 2023. 3. 23-CLG Grant Award Announcement Ratzlaff shared that the program was awardba CLG funds for the next grant _cycle with $147,650 awarded. The grant projects -Will be: the contf'ruation of the phased resurvey of Hillcrest; funds to staff and commissioner training, and the development of new design guidelines. She said the grant for design guidelines was intended for Central High if the local ordinance district passed at the Board level, but the funds could also be pivoted to be used for the necessary updates to the MacArthur 48 March 2, 2023 Park guidelines if the LOO was denied instead of losing that part of grant award. 4. Local Ordinance District Update Ratzlaff shared that the Board of Directors will hear the proposed to establish a local ordinance district for the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District at their March 7th meeting. 5. CAMP Training May 5, 2023 Ratzlaff reminded Commissioners of the upcoming training in Fort Smith on May 5th hosted by the AHPP. 6. Enforcement Issues None 7. Certificates of Compliance HDC2023-002-1402 Commerce-storm windows HDC2023-005 -623 Rock Street -fascia and crown repairs HDC2023-006-316 E 11th Street-fence repair 8.Citizen Communication No citizens chose to speak during this time. V. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn, and the meeting ended at 5:38pm. Attest: Chair Date Staff Date 49