Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_03 07 2024 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 MINUTE RECORD Thursday, March 7th, 2024, 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 Jonathan Nunn Tom Fennell Amber Haugen Scott Green Thomas DeGraff Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff Sherri Latimer Jeremy Gosdin Citizens Present: John Greer Amy Jones Joe Flaherty Suzanna Gobmyer Siraj Asfahani Douglas Kaarre Brian Minyard II. Finding a Quorum A quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Deputy City Attorney, Sherri Latimer, announced an amendment to the agenda. The Certificate of Appropriateness application for demolition at 712 E. 11th Street, March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission 2 HDC2024-001, would be withdrawn. Latimer explained that the property owner, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, as a state entity, is not required to seek approval from the Historic District Commission for activities within the local ordinance district and is obligated to the requirements of the Historic Districts Act as a property owner. III. Citizen Communication Chloe Chapman, Executive Director of Our Little Rock, addressed the commission. Chapman announced her organization was hosting a scavenger hunt event of the MacArthur Park Historic District, in partnership with the City of Little Rock and Historic District Commission, on March 16th. The scavenger hunt would utilize an interactive web map created by Planning & Development staff to engage attendees with the historic neighborhood and gather feedback and input on the design guidelines project. IV. Minutes 1. February 1st, 2024 Minutes The minutes were presented. Commissioner Aleman made a motion to approve the minute as submitted. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The minutes were approved by voice vote. Commissioner Jones proposed an amendment to the order of the agenda and sought the commission’s approval to hear Other Matters Item One at the beginning of the meeting to discuss the draft outline and memorandum submitted by the Lakota Group for the new MacArthur Park design guidelines. The agenda amendment was approved by voice vote. V. National Register Nominations 1. NR2024-001 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Asher Avenue Overpass Asher Avenue between Appianway St. and South Thayer Street 2. NR2024-002 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Capitol-Main Historic District Boundary Increase 609 and 615 Main Street 3. NR2024-003 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Red Carpet Inn 2020 Vance Street March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission 3 VI. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness 1. HDC2024-001 University of Arkansas at Little Rock/ John Greer Jr. AIA, WER Architects 712 E. 11th Street Demolition The application was withdrawn from the agenda. VII. New Certificates of Appropriateness None VIII. Other Matters 1. The Lakota Group, Draft Outline & Memorandum (1 st Deliverable) 2. 24-CLG Grant update 3. Underrepresented Communities NPS grant update 4. Enforcement Issues None 5. Certificates of Compliance HDC2024-002 – 1311 Cumberland – reroof HDC2024-003 – 621 Cumberland – repointing HDC2024-004—308 E 7th Street – repointing IX. Adjournment March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2024-001 NAME: Asher Avenue Overpass LOCATION: Asher Avenue between Appianway Street and S. Thayer Street APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox City of Little Rock Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Owner 1101 North Street, 500 W Markham Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Figure 1. Asher Avenue Overpass, 2024. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 5 AREA: 0.56 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : N/A WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: None, Near the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: DOE: Determined to be Eligible CURRENT ZONING: I2, Light Industrial A. BACKGROUND Location The subject structure is located on Asher Avenue, between Appianway Street and S. Thayer Street, Little Rock, AR. Figure 2. Location of the Asher Overpass in relation to surrounding historic districts. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 6 B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the Asher Avenue Overpass to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A for its association with the efforts during the twentieth century to provide updated highway infrastructure around the state. Areas of significance are Transportation. The period of significance is 1940. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At 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’s Statement of Significance summary section states: “The Asher Avenue Overpass, which was built in 1940 by Ottinger Brothers to carry Asher Avenue over the Union Pacific (originally the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific and the Missouri Pacific) railroad line, is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A: Transportation with local significance for its association with the efforts during the twentieth century to provide updated highway infrastructure around the state. The bridge also reflects the state’s efforts to provide safe and updated grade crossing separation in order to help eliminate accidents between cars and trains at grade crossings. Even today, as the only historic elevated over the railroad line on the southwestern side of Little Rock, the Asher Avenue Overpass is an important part of the area’s transportation infrastructure. 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 March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 7 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. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 8 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 scheduled to be heard at the April 3 rd, 2024 State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the nomination of the Asher Avenue Overpass 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 7, 2024 Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Fennell asked if the other overpasses constructed during this era by the State Highway Commission over the railroad line (being the 12th Street overpass, the Daisy L. Gatson Bates overpass, and the 7th Street underpass) were being nominated in the future. Ratzlaff said she asked the AHPP the same question and Ralph Wilcox, National Register Coordinator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer at the AHPP, said the other bridges were being considered for nomination but they were not being pursued as a multiple property listing, primarily due to right-of-way discussions with Union Pacific. It is likely the Commission will see these nominations in the future. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the Asher Avenue Overpass to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A. Commissioner Jones seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2024-002 NAME: Capitol-Main Historic District Boundary Increase LOCATION: 609 and 615 Main Street APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Figure 1. 609 Main Street and 615 Main Street, 2024. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 10 AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Abutting the Capitol-Main Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Previously “Undetermined” (609 Main Street), Listed (615 Main Street) CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use A. BACKGROUND Figure 2. Location of 609 and 615 Main Street in relation to the existing Capitol-Main Historic District. Location The subject structure is located on 609 AND 615 Main Street, Little Rock, AR. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 11 B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the Fulk Estate Building and the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat Building through the Capitol-Main Historic District Boundary Increase to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and C as excellent commercial examples of Charles L. Thompson’s architecture and for their association with the commercial history of Little Rock. Areas of significance are Architecture and Commerce. The period of significance is 1916. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At 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’s Statement of Significance summary section states: “The Fulk Estate Building and the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat building are Prairie-style and Neoclassical-style buildings, respectively, that were designed by prolific Little Rock architect, Charles L. Thompson. The buildings were both completed in 1916 and have been occupied by commercial establishments ever since. The blocks surrounding the Fulk Estate Building and the Fulk-Arkansas Building have been used, primarily, for retail and commercial purposes since the 1900s, and are past of the Capitol-Main Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on April 2, 2012. The Capitol-Main Historic District was listed “for its local significance under Criterion A for its association with the commercial development of downtown Little Rock and under Criterion C for its importance as a representation for 20th-Century American Commercial buildings.” The Fulk Estate Building, which has recently been restored, and the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat Building are adjacent to the original Capitol-Main Historic District and are being nominated as the Capitol- Main Historic District Boundary Increase to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C: Architecture, with local significance, and under Criterion A: Commerce, also with local significance, as excellent commercial examples of March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 12 Charles L. Thompson’s architecture and for their association with the commercial history of Little Rock.” 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.  March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 13 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 scheduled to be heard at the April 3 rd, 2024 State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the nomination of the Fulk Estate Building and the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat Building through the Capitol-Main Historic District Boundary Increase to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and C and the submission of the nomination as written to the State Review Board. G. COMMISSION ACTION March 7, 2024 Commissioner Jones disclosed that she wrote the nomination for this item and recused herself from the commission deliberation and voting. Deputy City Attorney, Sherri Latimer, asked each commissioner if their vote would be influenced regarding the nomination because Commissioner Jones was the representative of the applicant. Each commissioner said they would not be influenced. Jones addressed the Commission as the applicant’s representative to answer questions regarding the nomination. Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the Commission. Jones made a presentation to the Commission and shared that the Fulk Estate Building at 609 Main Street was restored as close as possible to the original Charles Thompson design in good faith so that it would be eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-002 14 When the National Park Service staff reviewed the eligibility following restoration work, they determined over fifty percent of the original historic material had been lost and though significant efforts had been made to reconstruct missing architectural features, the building was not eligible. Jones said it was frustrating since the same amount of material loss and required reconstruction occurred in the restoration of the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat Building at 615 Main Street, which did achieve NR listing. Under this circumstance, the nomination to expand the Capitol-Main Historic District would bring both buildings, the Fulk Estate Building and the Fulk-Arkansas Democrat Building, into the historic district as contributing structures. Commissioner Aleman made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the Capitol-Main Historic District Boundary Increase to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A. Commissioner Haugen seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recusal (Jones), and 0 absent. March 7, 2024 NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2024-003 NAME: Red Carpet Inn LOCATION: 2020 Vance Street, Little Rock, AR APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Megan Willmes Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Figure 3. 2020 Vance Street, 2023 March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 16 AREA: 2.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: None HISTORIC STATUS: Determination of Eligibility, October 4, 2023 CURRENT ZONING: Planned Office District A. BACKGROUND Location The subject structure is located at 2020 Vance Street, Little Rock, AR. Figure 4. Location of 2020 Vance Street within Little Rock. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 17 B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The application request to nominate the Red Carpet Inn to the National Register of Historic Places for state significance under Criterion A for its importance to the African American commercial history in the state. Areas of significance are Ethnic Heritage/Black. The period of significance is 1972-1974. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At 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’s Statement of Significance summary section states: “Located at 21st Street and Interstate 30 in Little Rock, Arkansas, the 154-unit Red Carpet Inn holds a significant place in the history of Arkansas’ minority business ventures. The project was headed by a predominantly Black business group [All, Inc.] and led by notable figures from the African American community such as Senator Jerry Jewell, Christopher Mercer Jr., and Dr. Roosevelt Brown. They, along with the rest of the board [of All, Inc.], formed All, Inc. in 1969 with the intention of building a hotel to “capitalize on the 100 percent occupancy rate that Little Rock motels and hotels enjoy.” Jewell also stated that All, Inc. wanted to create something “as a group” to further the minority experience in Arkansas, as travel still carried many inconveniences and dangers for persons of color. The board bought land for the Red Carpet Inn based on plans by the Arkansas Highway Department to build an exit ramp near the hotel, which would attract customers looking for lodging from Interstate 30. Unfortunately, the exist ramp was built further down the interstate, and the location became less than ideal. All, Inc. continued securing financing for the $2.8 million project and broke ground for the Red Carpet in 1972. The hotel was finished in 1974 and officially opened in 1975. Financial troubles continued to plague the hotel along with burgeoning construction costs, an ill-trained staff, and low occupancy rates. The federal government filed suit for the outstanding loan amounts and by 1976, the hotel was closed, and Jewell and his business partners were facing bankruptcy. The hotel was foreclosed on and sold March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 18 in 1978 and turned into a Job Corps center for a short time before being left vacant since 2008. The Red Carpet Inn was “the largest business venture ever undertaken by a predominantly black group in Arkansas” and is being nominated to the National Register under Criterion A: Ethnic Heritage/Black with state significance for its importance to the African American commercial history in the state. The period of significance starts in 1972 with the groundbreaking of the hotel and ends in 1974, which is both the fifty-year mark and the year of the hotel’s completion.” 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 March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 19 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.” Staff finds the nomination’s consideration of state significance could be further supported by the 1969 City of Little Rock Planning Commission rezoning case record: Z-02246. In the minute record of the successful petition to rezone the property from two-family to commercial, Dr. Jewell discusses the intent of the motel to serve blacks and whites, men and women without bias or prejudice, and that the motel venture provides an opportunity for African Americans to participate in this level of business that is not yet seen in the State of Arkansas. The case file record provides further context to the community planning and zoning considerations of the property in relation to Interstate 30. The nomination is scheduled to be heard at the April 3 rd, 2024 State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the nomination of the Red Carpet Inn to the National Register of Historic Places for state significance under Criterion A for its importance to the African American commercial history in the state and the submission of the March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 20 nomination as written to the State Review Board. Staff additionally recommends the below historic documents to be integrated into the nomination: 1. City of Little Rock. “Zoning case file Z-02246.” 1969. Available at: http://web.littlerock.state.ar.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=154542&dbid=0&rep o=CityofLittleRock&cr=1 G. COMMISSION ACTION March 7, 2024 Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Green shared that his grandfather was one of the community investors in the Red Carpet Inn. Green said that the relocation of the proposed I-30 ramp from this intersection to 24 th Street further south dramatically altered the potential financial success of the project and the community felt it sabotaged the project. There was a discussion regarding the impact of I-30 and I-630 on African American businesses and neighborhoods through the decades, including W. 9th Street. Commissioner Fennell asked if the site had a proposed future use. Ratzlaff said she was unsure at the moment but could find out if a zoning case had been approved or filed. [Staff note: A Short-form Planned Office Development application, called The Residence at Pettaway, was filed in 2020 and approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors in 2020 to allow for a mixed use of multifamily residential, general office, medical office, and a laundromat. The application request stated: “The Residences at Pettaway Short-form POD, a request to renovate an existing 8- story building into 81 multifamily units, construct a5-story building containing 15 multifamily units, and renovate an existing structure into an urgent care facility.”] Commissioner Fennell made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the Red Carpet Inn to the National Register of Historic Places for state significance under Criterion A and the integration of the staff recommended zoning casefile record into the nomination narrative. Commissioner Nunn seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 21 X. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness 1. HDC2024-001 University of Arkansas at Little Rock/ John Greer Jr. AIA, WER Architects 712 E. 11th Street Demolition The application was withdrawn from the agenda. XI. New Certificates of Appropriateness None XII. Other Matters 1. The Lakota Group, Draft Outline & Memorandum (1st Deliverable) Staff, Ratzlaff, announced that the two staff from the Lakota Group previously assigned to this project have taken career opportunities elsewhere and have left the Lakota Group. New team members of the Lakota Group have been assigned. Douglas Kaarre and Siraj Asfahani of the Lakota Group introduced themselves and addressed the commission. Kaarre and Asfahani gave a presentation to the Commission summarizing Lakota’s key observations and the feedback heard so far during the public engagement process (summarized in the attached Memorandum). As well as providing an overview of the draft outline (attached) of the new design guidelines. Asfahani shared that the Commission could expect a first draft of the design guidelines to be delivered in May. Commissioner Aleman asked for clarification on whether paint colors would be regulated and if regulation of paint colors had been suggested via public input. Kaarre clarified that the guidelines would not specify paint colors but would more clearly specify painting and coating treatments of historic materials that are currently painted or currently not painted, as well as provide informational recommendations on traditional paint colors. There was a discussion concerning substitute materials. Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Fennell advocated to prohibit (1) the installation and application of vinyl siding or metal siding as cladding materials as allowable substitute materials for wood siding and (2) the installation of vinyl windows as a replacement of wood windows. Commissioner Fennell said that following the 1999 tornado that damaged hundreds of historic properties downtown, staff was able, through emergency authority, to approve the installation of vinyl and metal siding where it had previously been seen as inappropriate. Fennell wanted it to be clear in the guidelines March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 22 that vinyl was not an appropriate substitute material moving forward. Commissioner Jones added that the use of vinyl, metal, or fiber cement siding was inappropriate in projects utilizing state and federal historic tax credits and she wanted local ordinance district regulations to be compatible with tax credit regulations where possible. Commissioner Fennell discussed a common issue in new construction where vertical board and batten patterned vinyl siding is applied inappropriately against the soffit and fascia of gables and eaves in place of seamless wood boards. Fennell said vertical pattern vinyl siding was also used inappropriately over the beam and cornice on new porches. Commissioner Green asked if solar tiles or solar shingles would be addressed in the guidelines as a sustainable technology for substitute materials or materials appropriate in new construction. Ratzlaff said new technologies and building materials that are newly available on the market and have not had years of testing for assess durability, functionality, and general performance would typically be assessed for compatibility in the historic district. Compatibility assessments would look at product and methodology characteristics such as design, color, texture, scale, and proportion. Kaarre said the new design guidelines would be in line with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and any new technologies would be reviewed for compatibility as Ratzlaff outlined. Kaarre added that the replacement of historic roofing materials with any new material would typically be inappropriate. Ratzlaff discussed the existing Artificial Siding Policy document adopted by the Commission several decades ago and included in the existing design guidelines. She asked former City staff, Brian Minyard, if he could speak to the origin and purpose of the Artificial Siding Policy as the Commission wanted to exclude it from the new guidelines. Minyard said the policy predated his time as staff, starting in 2005, but he believed the policy was a reaction to staff’s emergency authority to issue COA approvals for vinyl siding following the 1999 tornado. There was a discussion regarding cost and durability comparisons of substitute materials. Asfahani provided an example of design guidelines that the Lakota Group created for another municipality showing lifecycle comparisons of common replacement/substitute materials with performance measures for durability, paint, moisture damage, and pest resistance. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 23 There was a discussion regarding historic streetscape features such as, curb stones, carriage steps, hitching posts, and brick sidewalks. Commissioner Fennell said he would like to see historic streetscape features and their treatments identified more clearly in the new guidelines. Ratzlaff said Planning & Development staff were, in conjunction with the new guidelines, inventorying these features in the district which will benefit future regulation processes. Commissioner Fennell expressed he was concerned that the district was losing these features through Public Works and utility company projects. Commissioner Fennell also addressed the need for the new design guidelines and the future Downtown Master Plan to be coordinated regarding infill construction. Ratzlaff said staff will make sure there is coordination between the plans and will keep the Commission informed on shared priorities as both planning projects unfold. Kaarre said the Lakota Group will make sure to reference relevant existing plans in the new guidelines. The Lakota Group staff will present a first draft of the guidelines in May and will meet with the Commission in person at that time to discuss the first draft. 2. 24-CLG Grant update Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to Commission regarding the awarded grant funding from the AHPP through the Certified Local Government program. The 2024 grant cycle awarded Little Rock $89,650.00 to fund three primary projects: phase 4 of the Hillcrest Historic District resurvey project, an informational brochure for the MacArthur Park Local Ordinance Historic District, and support for staff/commissioner training expenses, primarily for the NAPC (National Alliance of Preservation Commissions) Forum conference. 3. Underrepresented Communities NPS grant update Staff, Ratzlaff, announced that the City of Little Rock was awarded an Underrepresented Communities Grant (“URC”) through the Historic Preservation Fund, administered by the National Park Service. This grant will fund the research, preparation, and submission of a new nomination for the Dunbar School historic site in support of national significance. The grant activity will take place over the next two years. Little Rock was one of 21 communities across the country to receive a URC grant this cycle. March 7, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: THREE (Cont.) FILE NO.: NR2024-003 24 XIll. 1. Enforcement Issues There were no enforcement issues to report. 2. Certificates of Compliance HDC2024-002 -1311 Cumberland - reroof HDC2024-003 - 621 Cumberland - repointing HDC2024-004—308 E 7'^ Street- repointing XIV. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:42 P.M. Attest: Chair Date Staff Date THE LADKOTA ALLIES GROUP. IN PLACE 1 E. Wacker Dr. Floor 27 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 thelakotagroup.com MEMORANDUM TO: Hannah Ratzlaff, Urban Designer, City of Little Rock FROM: Douglas Kaarre, Historic Preservation Planner Siraj Asfahani, Vice President, The Lakota Group DATE: February 26, 2024 RE: MacArthur Park Design Guidelines Engagement Meetings: Key Observations and Issues This memorandum summarizes key design and preservation issues observed and documented during a visit to the MacArthur Park Historic District between December 6 and 7, 2023. The recent visit also provided an opportunity to discuss key preservation issues with the Historic District Commission, residents and property owners, and representatives from the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History and the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts. The stakeholder meetings helped to identify several preservation and design management challenges facing the Historic District. General Observations Residents of Little Rock expressed pride in their history and community and a shared commitment to preserving the Historic District’s architectural heritage. The Historic District has a distinctive identity, exhibited through almost 200 years of architectural and stylistic expressions and material variety. Along with its stock of historic homes ⎯ including representative examples of Victorian and Late Victorian residential design ⎯ the Historic District has an impressive collection of religious, educational, and commercial architecture along with well-scaled tree-lined streets and visually appealing streetscape environment. Most if not all residents and stakeholders that participated in the discussion sessions expressed an understanding that prioritizing the Historic District’s preservation and enhancement contributes to the neighborhood’s historic identity and livability as an attractive place to live and work. Residents agree that good repair and maintenance practices that retain historic character should serve as key preservation approaches and that the Design Guidelines should provide clear, concise guidance on maintenance and preservation treatments that raise local awareness and understanding of how to care for historic properties. In addition, the Design Guidelines, as well as active public education efforts, can help address public perceptions regarding the costs and benefits of historic building preservation. Overall, building fabric in the Historic District appears well maintained, demonstrating pride of place and the high value residents place on caring for their properties. The neighborhood and the Historic District Commission now need to address a critical issue: the design management of infill construction given the number of developable lots in the Historic District. Numerous vacant lots, the result of the incremental loss of buildings due to the construction of Interstate 630, the 1999 tornado, and demolition by neglect, are prospects for new housing construction and the community is looking to the Design Guidelines as well as previous infill projects to advise on appropriate design and materials for new construction. Planning | Urban Design | Landscape Architecture | Historic Preservation | Community Engagement Key Field Observations The Historic District as a whole is well-maintained and in good to excellent condition with a high level of integrity in terms of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Although there have been some changes and alterations to properties, such as the installation of replacement windows and painted brick, it is impressive and notable how prevalent original exterior wall siding is in the Historic District. The predominant residential character is intact with schools and religious buildings included within the mix of historic property types. Historic commercial buildings line the Historic District’s edges and perimeter. Stakeholders described out-of-town landlords as a challenge to maintaining rental properties. Providing information on financial incentives and other existing preservation programs may be of assistance to owners of historic properties in need of maintenance or rehabilitation. More specific observations include: • Exterior Wall Surfaces and Materials. As noted previously, the Historic District features a variety of historic building materials including wood clapboard, brick, and stone that are in good to excellent condition. There are few instances of outright material replacement in exterior wall surfaces, although there are examples of painted brick in the neighborhood, especially among the bungalow property types where porch piers and other walls feature painted surfaces. It may be the case that some properties have historically featured painted surfaces. Most of these changes occurred during the mid-20th century. There are also examples of covering historic wood cladding with substitute materials or adding a stained finish to historic wood surfaces. Determining appropriate approaches for substitute materials for wood clapboard siding, including vinyl, aluminum, fiber cement board siding, synthetic stucco (EIFS), and composite materials, can be a focus of discussion in the Design Guidelines. • Duplexes, Four-Flats, and Multi Family Property Types. The duplexes, four-flats, and multi-family property types found in the Historic District provide distinctive and important architectural variety while documenting the neighborhood’s growth and development into the early decades of the 20th century. While many of these property types are in good to excellent condition, there are several that have significant maintenance and repair issues involving wall materials and windows. • Windows. Windows are an important character-defining feature of a historic building and prioritizing their preservation is important. Many properties have retained their original windows while others have replacements. The replacements appear compatible with a dwelling’s architectural character and respect the predominate two over two or one over one double-hung configuration. There is no widespread use of storm windows, although those that do exist, are usually of metal or aluminum construction. Encouraging appropriate storm window materials and installation may be one way to facilitate the long-term preservation of existing historic windows. Providing information on wood window repair when it is appropriate to replace historic windows and, if so, what replacement windows should be used is important information. Guidance for storm windows including material, design, and placement is another component of window maintenance. • Additions. The neighborhood’s predominate small lot development pattern will serve as a constraint to adding new additions on most side elevations, although there are properties with larger lots in the district. Therefore, the design guidelines could focus on dormer additions, detached accessory dwellings, and those planned for the rear facades. • Landscape Features. MacArthur Park includes a variety of landscape elements from historic fences, paths, walks, retaining walls, brick sidewalks, mature trees, and other vegetation and plantings. These elements contribute significantly to the neighborhood’s visual qualities. Given that some are public right-of-way elements, the Design Guidelines can devote narratives to their proper care, maintenance, and rehabilitation as part of neighborhood capital improvements planning. • Infill Construction. As noted previously, infill construction presents a significant design challenge for the Historic District. However, there are appropriate and well-designed infill examples already in the neighborhood that should serve as good models for further discussion and elaboration in the Design Guidelines. However, additional discussion may be warranted to determine the general parameters of acceptable and unacceptable infill construction in the Historic District. • Non-Historic Features. The Design Guidelines should include a discussion on the removal of non-historic features where they exist in the Historic District to avoid further non-conformance with the Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines Key Observations and Issues – MacArthur Park Historic District, Little Rock, AR, Page 2 • Paint. Paint color is a topic that draws conflicting opinions, and the Design Guidelines should provide information on selecting appropriate colors and how they are applied to the building rather than mandating the use of a particular color palette. • Non-Contributing Buildings. The Design Guidelines should clarify treatment options for non-contributing buildings and additions in the Historic District to avoid further non-conformance with the Design Guidelines. • Accessory Buildings. The Design Guidelines should include information on existing and new accessory buildings and their design considerations. Accessory buildings include detached accessory dwellings, carriage houses, garages, and sheds. • Infrastructure and Placemaking. Street infrastructure is an important historic feature in MacArthur Park. The Design Guidelines should include narratives on retaining historic stone curbs, stone or brick sidewalks, and light standards that contribute to the Historic District’s character. While public art is a popular expression of community identity in many places that can beautify and enliven streetscapes, providing features that help to aesthetically minimize the gap created by Interstate 630, such as streetscape and right-of-way improvements, may have a greater impact within the Historic District. • Other Features. Along with windows, include information regarding the repair and maintenance of architectural features including porches, foundations, walls, cornices, doors, commercial storefronts, roofs, dormers, fences, signage, and lighting. When historic features are missing the Design Guidelines should provide guidance on reintroducing those features. Community Feedback Summary As noted previously, meetings with MacArthur Park stakeholders over the two-day visit help identify issues and needs related to design management in the Historic District and the role of the Historic District Commission in that management. Participants raised several key issues including incorporating clear and concise language in the design review process, the importance of detailed guidelines on the maintenance of historic materials, effective standards for new construction and their design and materials, streetscape and right-of-way improvements, and the broad need for education about historic preservation in the neighborhood. More specifically, the issues included: • Commission Design Review Process. The Historic District Commission is a critical player in promoting historic preservation in Little Rock and has a positive reputation in the neighborhood. The Commission also seeks to engender public understanding of the Commission’s design review process as well as encourage property owners to consult with the Commission to promote higher quality preservation and rehabilitation projects in the Historic District. However, the Design Guidelines should clarify and highlight the Historic District Commission’s design review process, historic preservation terminology, and what constitutes appropriate work for a historic building. • Design Guidelines Education Topics. Public education and outreach are important needs in Little Rock and MacArthur Park and contribute to positive community relationships with the Historic Preservation Commission. Education reinforces the value of preserving MacArthur Park’s irreplaceable heritage. The Design Guidelines could incorporate the following topics within the Design Guidelines to elevate the neighborhood’s understanding of the local history, architecture, and historic preservation’s benefits. These topics can include: − The value of historic preservation and its role in retaining the neighborhood’s unique identity and sense of place. − Information on historic building types and architectural styles. − Defining and differentiating the Local Ordinance Historic District and the National Register of Historic Places programs. − Defining contributing and non-contributing properties in the district and how to treat properties to prevent further non-conformance. − Financial benefits of historic preservation. − The opportunities for using rehabilitation tax credits and other incentives. − The concept of historic integrity and the importance of original building materials. Design Guidelines Key Observations and Issues – MacArthur Park Historic District, Little Rock, AR, Page 3 − Appropriate maintenance and repair, and the benefits of retaining historic materials. − Benefits of excluding inappropriate materials to preserve the historic integrity of the Historic District and, − Guidance on new design within a historic context and the importance of using high-quality natural materials for repair or new construction in the Historic District. These topic narratives should also help property owners gain an understanding of the cost benefits of maintenance and using appropriate materials. Stakeholders also reinforced the need for identifying sources for historic materials and windows, for identifying skilled contractors, and for engaging realtors who market and sell homes in the Historic District. The Design Guidelines will facilitate a broader understanding of historic preservation in the MacArthur Park neighborhood and explain a variety of topics related to historic preservation best practices. These explanations provide a framework for the consistent application of recommended treatments and preferred materials. Other Issues and Needs Residents expressed the desire for consideration of demolition by neglect provisions typically addressed through amendments to the local ordinance. Local ordinance review and updating is not a central focus of this design guidelines assignment; however, these topics do affect the relationship to design review so are mentioned here. Residents expressed interest in clarifications to the Historic Preservation Ordinance including: • A definition of demolition by neglect, preventative measures, and enforcement specifications. • Opportunities for salvaging historic materials during demolition. We look forward to the next phase of the project. Design Guidelines Key Observations and Issues – MacArthur Park Historic District, Little Rock, AR, Page 4 THE LADKOTA ALLIES GROUP. IN PLACE 1 E. Wacker Dr. Floor 27 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 thelakotagroup.com MACARTHUR PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Revised Draft Outline February 26, 2024 Part 1: Introduction 1) Why Preserve a) Benefits of Historic Preservation | p xx 2) Using the Historic District Design Guidelines | p xx a) Standards versus Guidelines | p xx 3) Little Rock Historic Preservation Program and MacArthur Park Historic District | p xx a) Policy Framework | p xx b) Legal Authority | p xx 4) Application and Design Review Process | p xx a) Certificate of Appropriateness | p xx b) Design Review Flow Chart | p xx c) Commission Review and Staff Review | p xx Part 2: MacArthur Park Historic District 1) Map of MacArthur Park Historic District | p xx 2) History and Architecture of the MacArthur Park Historic District | p xx 3) National Register of Historic Places | p xx 4) Local Ordinance Historic District Designation | p xx 5) Contributing versus Non-Contributing | p xx Part 3: Design Guidelines Approach and Principles 1) Introduction| p xx 2) Using the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards | p xx 3) Preservation Principles and Best Practices | p xx Part 4: Maintenance Planning 1) The Value of Property Maintenance | p xx 2) Guidelines for Maintenance and Repair of Historic Features | p xx 3) Maintenance Inspection Guidance for Property Owners | p xx Part 5: Guidelines for Building Materials. 1) Introduction | p xx 2) Wood | p xx 3) Masonry | p xx 4) Stucco | p xx 5) Metal | p xx 6) Glass | p xx 7) Substitute Materials, Longevity, and Lifecycle Comparisons | p xx a) HDC Artificial Siding Policy | p xx 8) Paint and Paint Colors | p xx Part 6: Residential Architecture: Preservation, Repair, and Rehabilitation Guidelines Planning | Urban Design | Landscape Architecture | Historic Preservation | Community Engagement 1. Foundations | p xx 2. Walls, Exterior Siding, and Cladding | p xx 3. Porches and Steps | p xx 4. Doors | p xx 5. Windows | p xx a) Condition Evaluation | p xx b) Historic Window Repair and Replacement | p xx c) Replacing Non-Original Windows | p xx d) Storm Windows | p xx 6. Roofs and Related Features | p xx a) Dormers | p xx b) Chimneys | p xx c) Cornices and Parapets | p xx d) Gutters and Downspouts | p xx e) Standing Seam Metal Roofs | p xx f) Slate Roofs | p xx g) Other Roofing Materials | p xx 7. Decks | p xx 8. Garages, Carriage Houses, and Accessory Buildings | p xx 9. Reintroducing Missing Historic Architectural Features | p xx 10. Reversing Non-Historic Features | p xx Part 7: Institutional and Commercial Architecture: Preservation, Repair, and Rehabilitation Guidelines 1. Traditional Commercial Storefront | p xx 2. Upper Story Facades | p xx 3. Canopies, Awnings, and Balconies | p xx 4. Roof and Cornice Features | p xx 5. Rear Facades | p xx 6. Signage | p xx 7. Lighting | p xx 8. Reintroducing Missing Historic Architectural Features | p xx 9. Reversing Non-Historic Features | p xx 10. Garbage Collectors | p xx Part 8: Weatherization and Energy Efficiency 1. Introduction | p xx 2. Weatherization | p xx 3. Green and Cool Roofs | p xx 4. Solar Panels | p xx 5. Solar Water Heaters | p xx 6. Disaster Preparedness | p xx Part 9: Guidelines for New Construction and Additions 1. Introduction | p xx 2. Site Layout and Orientation | p xx 3. Architectural Expression for New Construction and Additions | p xx 4. Scale, Mass, and Form | p xx 5. Materials | p xx 6. Architectural Features | p xx 7. Garages and Accessory Buildings | p xx 8. Case Study Examples in the Historic District | p xx Part 10: Guidelines for Relocation and Demolition 1. Relocation of Buildings in the Historic District | p xx 2. Demolition of a Historic Building | p xx 3. Demolition of a Non-Historic Building | p xx Design Guidelines Outline – MacArthur Park Historic District, Little Rock, AR, Page 2 Part 11: Guidelines for Site Features, Streetscape and Placemaking 1. Site Features | p xx 2. Sidewalks | p xx 3. Carriage Walks and Carriage Steps | p xx 4. Hitching Posts | p xx 5. Stone Curbs | p xx 6. Fences and Walls | p xx 7. Retaining Walls | p xx 8. Lighting | p xx 9. Ceiling Fans | p xx 10. Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Garbage Bins | p xx 11. Parking, Driveways, Curb Cuts | p xx 12. Fire Escapes | p xx 13. Handicap Ramps | p xx 14. Recreational Structures | p xx 15. Paving | p xx 16. Alleys | p xx 17. Parks | p xx 18. Placemaking | p xx Appendices 1. Appendix A: Glossary of Terms| p xx 2. Appendix B: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties| p xx 3. Appendix C: State of Arkansas Statute for Historic Preservation| p xx 4. Appendix D: City of Little Rock Municipal Code for Historic Preservation| p xx 5. Appendix E: Historic Preservation Incentives | p xx 6. Appendix F: National Park Service Preservation Briefs | p xx 7. Appendix G: Additional Resources | p xx 8. Appendix H: Architectural Styles and Vernacular Forms of MacArthur Park | p xx Design Guidelines Outline – MacArthur Park Historic District, Little Rock, AR, Page 3