HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Final ActionLITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 1987
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Acting Chairman,
John Jarrard. There were four (4) members present and one (1)
absent (William H. Kennedy, III). The minutes of the last two
meetings were approved as received.
Commissioner Jarrard stated that the Cashion & Company requested
to move to the front of the agenda due to a conflicting business
meeting. Request granted.
Mr. John Allison, Principal with the Allison, Moses, & Redden
Firm, representing the Cashion Company, said that he was there to
present an additional scheme for the Cashion Company. He said
the scheme involves extending the building to the south in the
same style of the existing building. He said the scheme entails
reconfiguring and completing the parking lot in order to come up
with the requested number of spaces. Mr. Allison said they were
actually one space short, but that space will be accommodated in
at least one block as mentioned in the letter of request. The
same brick and roofing material will be used.
Ms. Averial Tate was present to represent herself and her two
aft, children who are co -owners of her property. She said their lot
#4 is adjacent to this property on the east and extends 75 feet
back. She said they would be glad to have the Cashion & Company
as neighbors. She said she thought the plans were excellent and
she (and her children) would like to see it approved.
Mr. Bill Hall, representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program, recommended that the application be granted.
Ms. Jeanette Krohn, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter
Association, stated they also recommend that the application be
granted for the addition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carfagno and seconded by
Commissioner Nichols to approve the Cashion Company application
as filed.
The Commission unanimously approved the application for Cashion
and Company to erect an addition to the existing office.
The next item on the agenda was a demolition request at 1016
Commerce by Mr. Leonard Hollinger.
Mr. Hollinger spoke on behalf of himself and his wife. Mr.
Hollinger said they were requesting permission to remove the
house at 1016 Commerce and then later remove the house at 1020
AM% Commerce and construct a suitable residence for them and for
their parents. Mr. Hollinger said what they would like to do is
remove the house at 1016 to protect himself of any liability.
In answer to Commissioner Johnson's question regarding the
M%, colors, Mr. Renshaw stated they did not have any colors nicked
our; bi;t ti7ev would 1 i Ka to -3 w. .n a blue.
Commissioner Nichols stated that technically the commissioners
don't control paint color, but her concern was that the wrong
color could be out of character with the district.
LV answer 1.V11111I1bb1VlIC1 JdLLCILU-b yU(2b1-1 TJ LegaLuing the LL-eaL-
ment, fir_ Renshaw stated that it would be lattice wnrk__ ('nmmi-;-
sinner Jarrard stated the reason he asked the question was
because the lattice work in the older homes are about 1", or
1/2", or 3/8" wide, and he said we have had lattice work come
through that looks like this and end up a 3" square. Mr. Renshaw
sated that he would have to get with the owner and make sure that
Lle understood.
lIC iinuCl J LVVu.
Mr. Bill Hall, representing the State Historic Preservation
Program, recommended approval of the application. He also stated
that the AHPP felt that the proposed conditions are compatible
with the buildings in the Historic District. He stated that it is
AHPP concern too, that with the wrong paint scheme could take on
a different look.
Ms. Jeanette Krohn, representina the O_uaoaw Ouarter Association,
recommended annrnyal of the ann1 i r-a t i r,n
.� A motion was made by Commissioner Carfagno and seconded by
Commissioner Johnson to approve the Fashion Park Cleaner's
application. The Commission voted to approve the application by
a vot of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
The next item on the agenda was from Madden, Byrlay, and Johnson,
Attorneys for restoration of a front porch at 515 Rock Street.
Mr. Mike Farney, representing the law firm stated that he had
already met with the Commissioners and Mr. Dooley and they were
all aware of what was submitted. He said he thought it was
pretty much self explanatory and he was open for any questions.
Commissioner Nichols stated she wanted to know if there was any
reason for changing the dormer or leaving the louvers since it
was not mentioned in the proposed narrative describing the work
to be done? Mr. Farney stated they thought that glazing the
dormer would be more attractive than the louvers. To answer
Commissioner Nichols question about leaving the louvers, Mr.
Farney said he did not think it would be a problem if they left
the louvers.
Commissioner Johnson stated that several things had changed from
the original building and several things were not noted. He said
he was curious about the change of the columns from single
columns to double columns and the additional dentil work around
OM% the front porch. He futher stated that the size of the stairway
bothered him.
Mr. Farney said he would address them one at a time. He said
oft he believed that it was not the original porch. The brick porch
and stairs are possibly around six years old. The brick porch
would be replaced by a wood porch. He said the dentil work was
added simply because it was the owners request. He further
stated that the way the porch is affixed to the front of the
house it looks to him like it was an after thought.
Commissioner Carfagno stated she had concerns regarding the
railing, there were no indications that there was a rail. There
was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter and the presenter
used photographs as a back-up to his presentation.
After discussion and reviewing the photos, Commissioner Jarrard
asked that the columns not be full square but chamfered on the
edge. Mr. Farney stated that this could be done.
Commissioner Nichols stated that she would like to see the flat
arch detail of the corner remain and the single columns used.
She said she perferred the dentil wor� not be added.
Mr. Bill Hall stated that they (AHPP) recommended reconstruction
of the porch incorporating as much as the original facade as
possible, especially the brackets. They also recommended that a
single column be used in the new design using either a square
chamfered column or a column representing the existing column.
He said they also recommend that the dentil work be omitted
.t, unless evidence can be found to document that it was on the
original porch.
Ms. Jeanette Krohn stated that they (QQA) recommend approval
although there is some concern with the use of dentil work on the
front porch. She said it seemed to detract from the detail of
the main structure.
In answer to Commissioner Nichols question, it was stated by Mike
Dooley that they should try and do a motion in the affirmative as
to what was submitted and delete those that they feel are not
appropriate. Commissioner Carfagno wanted to know if that was
changing the applciation. It was stated by Mike Dooley that the
applicant can amend his application to conform with the vote.
Mr. Farney stated that they had no objection in changing the
roof, no objection to the chamfered columns, omitting the dentil
work, but they would like to keep the 2 x 2 rail system. He
also stated they had no objection to leaving the louvers in the
dormer.
Mr. Farney said they would be willing to space the railing 4" as
on the new code.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
application with the changes and these changes be contingent
Ank upon, existing brackets be kept, louviers on dormer be kept, the
dentil as proposed be eliminated, 4" crown be used, the roof be a
flat seam, the spindles be at least 6" on the center, and the
column be chamfered. Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and
seconded by Commissioner Nichols. The commission voted to
r approve the application by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes; 1 ahsPnt=
L�
Last item #3 was submitted by Dr. N. W. Riegler, Jr., MD, for new
construction of a medical clinic at 923 Rock Street. Mr. Glen
Henson, Administrator for Riegler Health Serice was present
representing Dr. N. W. Riegler. Mr. Henson stated that his
u rj„1VJe was to a lJ f Jer v 11.0 L_ l_llt l_llilll111 tii 1 l I" l )fl rl I1 V (1F• I -]I I ti
that they may like to discuss concerning their medical practices
and pulnL cut the need for their new facility. Mr. Henson also
gave the Commission a complete layout of the practice. He stated
that Mr. Allen Beasley would be presenting the plan to them.
Mr. Allen Beasley presented a drawing of the proposal and
explained what he felt was necessary for a site plan. He further
stated that they would like to get an approval from the committee
to get a landscape franchise from the city to do additional
landscape in the right -way which further isolated structure.
Mr.Beasley said they had worked on the project for several months
and they would appreciate the Commissioners support.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he noticed the site plan pro-
posed was different from the one the Commissioners had in their
packet and that the building is now up against the parking lot.
Mr. Beasley said they had talked with the City about their
parkinq, and the City felt that because it was a two lane on a
d% diagonal parking space they needed to increase the lane. In
turn, they took out the sidewalks.
�________��_�__.,,,� .....rf., .. .�.. L.,� Y L...v 1•_ ..v • L• •• ••• V! /•.^F^r-.nn Ani__L C4_-__ i•____
were to the building? Mr. Beasely stated that there was an
employee entrance and a delivery entrance.
To answer Commissioner Jarrard's question regarding the trees,
Mr. Beasley said they could cut around most of the trees.
Commissioner Johnson wanted to know about the sidewalks.
Mr. Beasely stated that they would build new sidewalks with curb
and gutter. He said they were not going to disturb the existing
curb around the side. Also he stated that after talking with the
people at the City they were told they did not need to remove
them.
A brief history of Dr. Riegler's practice was explained to the
Commissioenrs upon the request of Commissioner Carfagno.
Commissioner Johnson wanted to know about the shutters on the
lower floor and if that was brick behind the shutters. Mr.
Beasley stated that it was, but there will be a construction
point there.
omk After a lengthy discussion regarding the application, Mr. Beasley
pointed out that they had discussed many alterations of the
building and what they wanted was to get some approval on the
a