Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_07 03 2024DEPARTMENT 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 Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024, 4:00 p.m. Willie Hinton Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 W. 12th Street I. Roll Call Members Present: Vice Chair, Christina Aleman Jonathan Nunn Tom Fennell Thomas DeGraff Scott Green Members Absent: AmberJones Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff Jeremy Gosdin Sherri Latimer Raeanne Gardner Citizens Present: Joe Flaherty Matthew Pekar Ed Sergeant II. Finding a Quorum A quorum was present, being five (5) in number. III. Citizen Communication No citizens chose to speak at this time. July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission IV. Minutes 1. April 4, 2024 Minutes Commissioner Fennell made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Nunn seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 2. June 6, 2024 Minutes Commissioner Aleman requested corrected spelling. Commissioner Nunn made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner DeGraff seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. V. National Register Nominations NR2024-004 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Overpass Hilaro Springs Road over Little Fourche Creek Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places Consideration of the nomination of item NR2024-004 was deferred to the August 7th meeting to allow staff to coordinate with the City of Little Rock Public Works Department on the implications of the nomination to plans for significant improvements to the bridge. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to defer the nomination consideration. Commissioner DeGraff seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Jones and Green), and 1 vacant position. NR2024_005 Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Worthen Building 200 Capitol Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places VI. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness HDC2024-013 First Lutheran Church/ Sergeant Architecture PLLC 700 S. Rock Street Exterior Alterations, Accessibility Ramp 2 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission VII. New Certificates of Appropriateness HDC2024-015 Matthew Pekar 1017 S. Cumberland Street Exterior Alterations, Reconstruction, Rear Addition, Fencing VIII. Other Matters 1. Pankey's Third Addition and Extension: Arkansas Heritage Site 2. COA Procedures for Administrative Issuance 3. CAMP Training, October 4, 2024 4. Enforcement Issues 418 E 15th Street—unpermitted installation of fencing 5. Certificates of Compliance HDC2024-021-1420 Cumberland —exterior repairs, reroof, rear deck removal, gutter installation HDC2024-022-700 S. Rock Street —exterior and site repairs IX. Adjournment 3 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2024-005 NAME: The Worthen Building LOCATION: 200 West Capitol Avenue APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Ralph Wilcox Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR 200 West Capitol Investments LLC 9800 Maumelle Blvd North Little Rock, AR Figure1. Worthen Building, 200 W Capitol Street, 2023. 4 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2024-005 AREA: 1.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 2 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: Across from the Capitol -Main Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: DOE 2023 CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use A. BACKGROUND Location The subject structure is located at 200 W. Capitol Street, Little Rock, AR. Figure 2. Location of the Worthen Building at 200 W Capitol Street. 5 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: N.R2024-005. B. PRO POSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application requests to nominate the Worthen Bank Building to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion C as an outstanding representation of the Brutalist architectural style. The area of significance is Architecture. The period of significance is 1967-1969. 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 Worthen Bank Building is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with Local significance under Criterion C. Designed by the architect Noland Bass, Jr., in the late 1960s, the Worthen Building is an outstanding representation of the Brutalist style. The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture notes the following characteristics of Brutalism: raw concrete, sometimes with formwork patterns visible or possibly emphasized; use of over -sized rough concrete elements; aspects of mechanical engineering, such as service ducts, ventilation -towers, and the Like, often overtly displayed. The Worthen Building design embodies these characteristics of Brutalism with its frame of reinforced concrete and the exterior of white precast concrete panels with deep-set bronze -tinted windows. ALL four sides of the office high-rise are primarily uniform grids of white precast concrete with recessed windows contrasted by the placement of richly textured structural concrete tower which enclose the elevators, stairs, restrooms, and mechanical shafts. The repetitive design is emphasized by dramatic changes in fenestration on floors one, two, four and twenty-three. The Worthen Building represents a significant period in American architectural history in Arkansas. The period of significance for the building, 1967- 1969, represents the years of the building's construction." 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: 6 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2024-005 "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 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 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2024-005 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 meets the National Register criteria for eligibility, is an excellent example of Brutalist architecture in Little Rock's downtown, and worthy of preservation. The nomination is scheduled to be heard at the April 3rd, 2024 State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF ECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the nomination of the Worthen Building 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 July 3, 2024 At this point, Commissioner Green joined the meeting and was able to hear the full report on the item. Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner DeGraff made a motion to recommend the nomination as written. Commissioner Fennell seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Jones), and 1 vacant position. 8 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 NAME: Welch-Cherry House - Exterior Alterations, ADA Handicap Ramp LOCATION: Welch-Cherry House, 700 S. Rock Street, Little Rock, 72202 OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: First Lutheran Church 314 E 8ᵗʰ Street Little Rock, AR, 72202 Edward R. Sergeant, Sergeant Architecture PLLC 1858 S Arch Street Little Rock, AR, 72206 Figure 3. 700 S RoC:k Street, front facade, looking northwest. 9 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 AREA: 0.36 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing CURRENT ZONING: R4A— Low Density Residential CONSERVATION EASEMENT:2016, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 700 S. Rock Street. The property's legal description is "W40' of Lot 10 and All of Lots 11 and 12, Block 42, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas". Context The subject property sits at the southwest corner of E 7th Street and S Rock Street and is the site of the Welch-Cherry House, a two- story brick masonry structure built as a residence in 1881 in the Italianate style. The structure is Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District and the most recent Arkansas Architectural Resource Form (PU2830, 2007) is provided as Attachment C. The Welch-Cherry House displays a compound front -facing T plan with an asymmetrical front gable and cross -gable roof. The home displays subdued Italianate details, such as tall and narrow two -over -two wood windows with hooded, segmental arches, and simple eaves with built-in gutters. Frame partial porches, single -story and two-story, sit against each elevation with collective square porch supports with beveled (chamfered) corners. Masonry details include brick window 10 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 hoods and courses parged and painted to appear like stone. The first story belt course along the street facing facades is precast concrete or stone. Uniquely, the home retains its original slate tile roof and five brick chimneys. The home lacks common ornate Italianate details such as cornices and eave brackets. The residence was built for Reverend Thomas R. Welch who was a prominent Mason and served as the pastor of Little Rock's First Presbyterian Church, at 800 Scott Street, for 25 years. Upon his death, Welch left the home to the directors of the Southwestern Presbyterian University in Tennessee. In 1892, the university sold the house to Lewis W. Cherry who was in the ice manufacturing business and later became president of the Peoples Building and Loan and president of the State National Bank in Little Rock. After Cherry's death in 1922, his widow occupied the house until her death in 1957. The home was later converted to apartments. In 1984, the First Lutheran Church, at 314 E 8th Street, received a Conditional Use Permit to convert the structure to office space and utilize the interior land of Block 42 for shared parking between the church, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, and J. Tucker Morse. The Welch -Cherry House was leased by J. Tucker Morse and RPM until recently. The church plans to continue the use of the home as office space. Previous Action On May 30, 2024, a COA (HDC2024-xxx) was issued for exterior masonry and wood repairs, installation of handrail on front steps, porch repairs, concrete walkway replacement, box gutter repairs, fencing repair, and HVAC replacement and screening. On January 25, 2017, a COC (HDC2017-001) was issued to the First Lutheran Church for replacement of the slate roof with architectural shingle and exterior wood repair. On May 9, 2016, a COA (HDC2016-006) was issued to the First Lutheran Church for replacement of the slate roof with architectural shingle. On August 16, 2002, a COA (HDC2002-10) was issued to the First Lutheran Church for a wood side ADA ramp on the south porch facing the shared parking. On December 6, 1990, a COA (HDC1990-010) was denied for signage. On April 5, 1984, a COA (HDC1984-004) was issued to the First Lutheran Church for restoration and repair, rear (west) porch alterations and enclosure, and shared parking lot design for Block 42. No previous actions were found on this site. 11 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 Sanborn Maps Figure 7. 700 S Rock Srrccl. 1897, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. Figure 6. 700 S Rork Street, 1913, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. Figure 5. 700 S Rock Street. 1939. Sanborn Map, Little Rock. Figure 4. 700 S Rock Street, 1950, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. 12 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 Historic Photographs & Drawings Figure 6. Welch-Cherry House, 1978 QQA architectural resource survey. Figure 8. Welch-Cherry East Elevation Drawing, Allison Moses Reddin,1984 Figure 8, Welch-Cherry, approved alterations to south elevation, Allison Moses Reddin, 1984. 13 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The application requests for the alteration of the rear (west) two-story enclosed porch, the removal and replacement of the existingADA ramp, the installation of new handrails on the south and east porches, the enclosure of the south porch pier foundation, and the removal of paint from the brick window hoods and second story brick belt course. The applicant has applied for an Historic Preservation Restoration Grant (HPRG) Option 2 with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for the same scope of work. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See site photos (Attachment A) and application packet (Attachment B). The application packet includes a cover letter, application, architectural plans and drawings by Sergeant Architecture PLLC, and subcontractor scopes of work categorized by trade. The State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, hold a fapade easement or conservation easement on the property. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At the time of distribution, staff received one letter of support (Attachment D). All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock surrounding the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: Rear Enclosed Porch Alteration The application proposes to remove existing lattice panels and metal floor -to -ceiling window wall system installed in the 1984-1985 restoration and rehabilitation of the property. The porch enclosure system will be replaced with wood (Spanish cedar) one -over -one non -operable windows with exterior mullions, arranged two and three per bay. Wood horizontal siding and trim in the same dimensions and exposure are proposed beneath the windows to match the south elevation porch. 14 J u ly 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 The proposal includes the restoration of all existing and original chamfered porch columns, pilasters, and remaining brackets. One existing column that is non -original will be replaced with a column that matches the originals in design and material. The four (4) existing brackets are proposed to be relocated from the second story to the first story, south elevation, of the porch. The brick masonry porch foundation will be deconstructed and rebuilt for stabilization with concrete footings and CMU (concrete masonry unit) bearing, with brick veneer salvaged from the existing foundation. It is staff's understanding that the existing horizontal siding covering the eaves, soffit, fascia, and foundation of the rear porch will be removed. These porch elements will be replaced with wood boards of the appropriate dimensions to be compatible with the other porches on the structure. The Design Guidelines in "Section III.B.4. Porches" state: "Porches on the front and side fagades should be maintained in their original configuration and with original materials and detailing. [... ] If a side or rear porch is not easily visible from the street, it may be enclosed, if the height and shape of the roof are retained and if the size of openings and materials match those of the main building." The "Guidelines for Rehabilitation" within the Secretaryof Interior Standards for Rehabilitation state, regarding porch enclosure: "Recommended: Enclosing historic porches on secondary elevations only, when required by a new use, in a manner that preserves the historic character of the building (e.g., using large sheets of glass and recessingthe enclosure wall behind existing posts and balustrades)." "Not Recommended: Enclosing porches in a mannerthat results in a diminution or loss historic character by using solid materials rather than clear glazing, or by placing the enclosure in front of, rather than behind, the historic features." Staff finds the proposed rear porch alterations are mostly consistent with the MacArthur Park Historic District Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. According to the Sanborn maps and Commission casefile records, the rear porch was constructed as a one-story frame porch with non-combustible roofing, likely metal. A second story was constructed by 1913 and remained open into the 1950s. The second story was enclosed and the first story partially enclosed bythe 1980s. The south elevation porch had gone through a similar evolution but was enclosed by 1939, within the period of significance of the District. To more clearly differentiate the periods of enclosure between the south elevation 15 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 porch, and the modern enclosure of the rear porch, staff recommends either the proposed siding be exchanged for simple solid panels or the enclosure system as a whole be reconfigured to consist of larger glazing without divide lights and a lower solid panel at porch railing height. Examples of enclosed secondary porches in this configuration exist throughout the MacArthur Park Historic District, see below. Figure 9. Holtzman-Vinsonhaler House, 500 E 8th, 2023. Figure 10. 601 Rock Street, 2023. Figure 11. Hanger House, 1010 Scott Street, 2023. 16 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 Accessibility Ramp FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 The application proposes the removal of the existing wood accessibility ramp on the south elevation and replacement with a concrete ramp and metal handrails. The ramp will connect the south porch to designated handicap parking. The Design Guidelines in "Section III.B.11. Handicap Access Ramps" state: "Handicap access ramps should be located on secondary or rear walls, constructed of wood in a style appropriate to the building. They should be stained or painted and should be screened with landscaping of low shrubbery to soften their appearance." The "Guidelines for Rehabilitation" within the Secretaryof Interior Standards for Rehabilitation state, regarding accessibility ramps: "Recommended: Minimizing the impact of accessibility ramps by installing them on secondary elevations when it does not compromise accessibility or by screening them with plantings." Staff finds the accessibility ramp is inconsistent with the MacArthur Park Historic District Design Guidelines in material and screening. The proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation in location. Staff recommends a wood accessibility ramp in consideration of the structure's architectural style, historic use, and materials. Concrete accessibility ramps are more appropriate on commercial and institutional structures that are an extension of the sidewalk to a storefront or entrance. A simple black, modular, metal accessibility ramp might also be more appropriate than concrete since it can be removed if needed. Porch Handrails The application proposes the installation of metal handrails with lamb's tongue ends along the porch steps of the front and south porches. One handrail is proposed for the front porch while retaining existing wood rails, two handrails are proposed for the south porch. The Design Guidelines in "Section III.B.5. Porches: Stair railing" state: "Stair railings may be required to meet city building codes. If historical evidence of style and placement exists, duplicate the original handrails. Many times, however, none existed or wooden rails deteriorated and were removed early in the history of the building. If no historical evidence exists, railings may be constructed of simple 17 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 metal pipe or flat bars and painted to match the trim color. In essence, the least obtrusive yet functional option may be used." Staff finds the proposed handrails are consistent with the MacArthur Park Historic District Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff recommends the relocation of the front porch handrail from the right side of the steps to the center of the steps if there is enough space. Paint and Coating Removal The application proposes to remove the paint from the brick masonry window hoods and second story belt course. Typically, the removal of paint from masonry would be supported and encouraged bythe Design Guidelines and the SOI standards. However, there is physical evidence to suggest that the brick belt course and window hoods were originally parged and painted to resemble stone. For this reason, the removal of paint and parge coating needs to be considered. Staff recommends the additional investigation of the window hoods and belt course and consultation with the AHPP and NPS regarding best practice in this circumstance. Figure 11. 700 Rock Street, front porch brick window hood with parge coating and paint. 18 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission DEFERRED ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-013 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The proposed siding on the rear porch be exchanged for simple solid panels below the windows to avoid conjecture. 2. The accessibility ramp be composed of wood with wood railings or a simple, dark colored metal ramp system that can be easily removed. 3. The owner will consult technical staff at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and National Park Service to determine whether paint should be removed or if parged coating reapplied and repainted on the window hoods and second story belt course. G. COMMISSION ACTION June 6, 2024 The application was deferred to the July 31 meeting due to a lack of a quorum. COMMISSION ACTION July 3, 2024 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission, stating the applicant requested the withdrawal of the item according to Article V.E.7. of the Little Rock Historic District Commission By -Laws. Per the by-laws, the applicant submitted a request for withdrawal in writing prior to the date of the advertised hearing. Lack of anticipated grant funds was stated as the reason for the withdrawal of the application. Mr. Ed Sergeant, project architect and authorized agent for the property owner, addressed the commission. Mr. Sergeant said the project was not awarded Historic Preservation Restoration Grant (HPRG) funds by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and a significant portion of the project is not currently feasible without this assistance. The First Lutheran Church has intentions to applyforthe HPRG next grant cycle and hopes to resubmit the COA application at that time. Commissioner DeGraff made a motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal of the application. Commissioner Fennell seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Jones), and 1 vacant position. 19 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 NAME: 1017 S Cumberland — Exterior Alterations, Reconstruction, Rear Addition, and Fencing LOCATION: Newby House, 1017 S Cumberland, Little Rock, 72202 OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Matthew Pekar 1017 S Cumberland Little Rock, AR 72202 Figure 12, 1017 S Cumberland, front facade, looking east. 20 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing CURRENT ZONING: R4A — Low Density Residential CONSERVATION EASEMENT: None A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 1017 S. Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is "Lot 5, Block 54, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas". Context The subject property is the site of the Newby House, a single -story wood frame structure supported by a brick masonry foundation built as a residence circa 1890 in the Folk Victorian style. The structure was modified in the 1950s and these alterations are considered historic. The structure is Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District and the most recent Arkansas Architectural Resource Form (PU3005, 2007) is provided as Attachment C. Figure 13. Location of 1017 S Cumberland within the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Newby House displays a compound front -facing T plan with an asymmetrical front gable and cross -gable roof with a shed addition in the rear. This form is typical of Folk Victorian homes in the area. Pre-1950, the residence displayed wood weatherboard siding, ornamental front porch columns and sun ray brackets, two- 21 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 over-two wood windows, and two entry doors with transom lights (similar to the residences at 1015 and 1016 S Rock). The second entrance and both transoms were enclosed post-1940s. The residence was modified in the 1950s by the Newby family. The Newby family resided in the home from c. 1939 to 2005. Ruth and George Newby rented the home at the time of their daughter's birth, Jeanette Newby, who was apparently born in the home's living room. The Newby's bought the residence sometime between 1945-1950 and made several modifications, including the asbestos siding and porch alterations. Asbestos was installed circa 1950 and vinyl siding was installed in the rear at a later date. Following Ruth Newby's passing in 1995, Jeanette and her husband lived in the home until her passing in 2005. This was Jeanette's home for possibly her whole life. A majority of what is known aboutthe residence is informed bythe Newby Family Photo Album. Previous Action On May 23, 2024, a COC (HDC2024-020) was issued to Matthew Pekar for foundation and porch repairs, new roofing, new HVAC, and foundation paint removal. On August 1, 2011, a COC (HDC2011-19) was issued to Matthew Pekar for brick masonry and porch floor repair. On May 5, 2003, a COA (HDC2003-008) was issued to Stephen and Jeanette Shields forwood fascia, soffit and eave replacement usingwhite anodized aluminum. No previous actions were found on this site. 22 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Sanborn Maps Figure 3. 1017 S Cumberland Street, Sanborn Map, 1897. Figure 4. 1017 S Cumberland Street, Sanborn Map, 1913. Figure 5. 1017 S Cumberland Street, Sanborn Map, 1939. Figure 6. 1017 S Cumberland Street, Sanborn Map, 1950. 23 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Historic Photographs Figure 7. Original front porch posts shown behind Ruthy Newby holding newborn daughter Jeanette Newby, 1939. Newby family photo album, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. Figure 8. Original front porch shown behind Ruth Newby, Jeanette Newby, and family dog, `943. Newby family photo album, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. Figure 9. Original font porch shown behind Jeanette Newby and friends, 1943. Newby family photo album, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. 24 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Figure 10. Modified front porch and siding, Ruth, George, and Jenette Newby, 150. Newby family photo album, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. Figure 11. Jeanette Newby on backyard swing of 1017 S Cumberland, 1943. Newby family hoto albume, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. Figure 12. Jeanette Newby in rear yard with rear porch shown behind, 1941. Newby family photo album, courtesy of Matthew Pekar. 25 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Figure 13. 1017 S Cumberland Street, QQA Archiectural Survey, 1978. 26 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Historic District Commission FEL.ENO— ; H MC20247:01_5 The application requests for the removal of the rear shed addition and rear deck, construction of a rear addition, removal of vinyl siding located alongthe rear and side elevations and replacement with wood siding, replacement of front gable window, installation of porch step handrails, and installation of rear yard fence. The proposal attempts to restore and reconstruct original character -defining features of the residence while retaining the modified features that have gained significance over time. The scope of work has received an approved Part 2 Historic Tax Credit application with conditions (Attachment D). C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See site photos (Attachment A) and application packet (Attachment B). The application packet includes a cover letter, application, survey by Trotter Surveying, proposed site plan, and proposed architectural plans and drawings by the owner. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At the time of distribution, staff received one letter of support (Attachment E). All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock surrounding the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: Vinyl Siding Replacement The application proposes to remove the existing vinyl siding along the rear elevation and replace with traditional horizontal wood bevel siding, a.k.a weatherboard siding, with a 41/2 inch exposure. Wood species is proposed as cedar or pine. The Design Guidelines in Section III states: 2.a. Artificial Siding Policy "For this reason, if the original exterior materials are presently covered with artificial siding or another non -historic material, it is encouraged to remove this material and restore the original beneath." 27 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 5. Walls: Siding, Wall Shingles, Stucco and Masonry "Historic siding materials, such as weatherboard, wood shingles, and stucco, should be preserved. If original siding materials must be replaced, the new siding should match the original as closely as possible, especially with respect to board size. Original corner boards should be duplicated in their full original dimensions." Staff finds the removal of the non -historic vinyl siding and replacement with traditional wood siding to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. The removal of non -historic features and the repair and necessary in -kind replacement of original features is appropriate. The structure was originally clad with wood weatherboard siding, as shown in historic photographs and seen from the interior side of the gable in the attic (see Attachment A). Original wood siding uncovered beneath the vinyl siding, if existing, should be repaired where possible. Corner boards should be reconstructed based on physical and documented evidence. If addressed, gable soffits and fascia should be reconstructed based on physical and documented evidence using wood. Soffit vents may be installed oriented parallel to the eaves and designed to be as visually inobtrusive as possible. Window Replacement The application proposes to replace the front gable six -over -six vinyl window with a one -over -one wood picture window. The replacement windowwill be designed in the configuration and dimensions of the original window, as shown in Figure 13. The replacement window will be 28" x 56", is manufactured by Heirloom Windows, and features true divided lights, dimensional muntins, and built-in weather stripping. No other existingwindows are proposed for replacement at this time. The Design Guidelines in Section III.B.2. states: "Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap -on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may be appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows are wood construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that facilitates easier maintenance. Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the historic district since they were not historically installed in the structures." 28 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 The Design Guidelines and the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code, encourage the restoration and reconstruction of lost historic character -defining features based on physical and documentary evidence. Staff find the proposed window replacement is consistent with the Design Guidelines. The existing, historic window frame and casing should be retained. Porch Step Handrail The application proposes installing a metal iron pipe handrail along the left side of the front porch steps. The Design Guidelines in "Section III.B.5. states: "Stair railings may be required to meet city building codes. If historical evidence of style and placement exists, duplicate the original handrails. Many times, however, none existed or wooden rails deteriorated and were removed early in the history of the building. If no historical evidence exists, railings may be constructed of simple metal pipe orflat bars and painted to match the trim color. In essence, the least obtrusive yet functional option maybe used." Staff finds the proposed handrail to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. New handrails must meet building code requirements. Rear Yard Fence The application proposes the installation of new fencing along the perimeter of the rear yard. The proposed fencing will be 40 inches tall and made of wood pickets in the still of the existing wood picket fence. The fence will be setback to from the front fagade of the principal structure and roughlyfollowthe property lines of the lot. The Design Guidelines in Section VII.A.3. states, regarding new rear yard fences: "On wood fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4") and set no farther apart than three inches (3"). Support posts may exceed the allowable fence or wall height by no more than six inches (6"). The design should be compatible with and proportionate to the building. [... ] Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72" tall." 29 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Staff finds the proposed fence to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. Rear Addition The application proposes the removal of the existing, non -historic rear addition and the construction of a new addition roughly following the same footprint. The new attached addition will extend from the east rear wall into the rear yard, will be frame construction clad with wood weatherboard siding supported by a parged concrete block foundation, have one -over -one wood windows, and be covered by a standing seam metal roof with a shed slope. The Design Guidelines in "Section W.A. Additions to Historic Structures" states: "An older addition to a historic structure that has achieved historic significance in its own right should be preserved. A more recent existing addition that is not historically significant may be removed. If a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, the addition should be of a compatible design, in keeping with the original structure's character, roof shape, materials, and the alignment of window, door, and cornice height. Additions include porches and baywindows, as well as entire wings or rooms. They should be located and scaled to be subordinate to the original structure. Additions should be constructed in a manner that avoids extensive removal or Loss of historic materials and should be accomplished without destroying or damaging character -defining details, including front or side porches. Additions should not hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the structure's historic period. Avoid imitating an earlier historic style or architectural period. Also avoid copying exactly the historic structure; instead, distinguish the new from the original, perhaps by simplifying or slreanAining the new design. If possible, keep original exleriur walls and utilize existing openings for connecting an addition with the original structure. Excavation adjacent to historic foundations should take care to avoid undermining the structural stability of the historic structure." The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states, regarding new additions: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that 30 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." Staff finds the existing addition to be non -historic and has not achieved historic significance based on physical evidence and historical documentation. Staff finds the proposed new addition to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed new addition uses a shed roof consistent with the traditional form of rear additions to single -story Folk Victorian residences in the District. The proposed standing seam metal roofing material is consistent with traditional material use and placement and has historic precedence related to the site's development history. The proposed roofing material manufactured by Rheinzink has a width of 16 inches between seams, which is compatible in design with the character of historic standing seam metal roofing (tin or copper) visible in the historic photographs of the rear of the structure. The massing, scale, and placement of the addition is subordinate to the historic residence, will be minimally visible from S. Cumberland, and will not disrupt the historic roof form of the residence. The addition is compatible with applicable zoning requirements for setbacks. The addition avoids extensive removal and loss of historic materials. Two -over -two wood windows are placed in alignment with historic window openings where adjacent. Addition details are simple and streamlined. Balustrades and porch railings along the rear stoop are simple and similar to the existingfront porch railings. Wood siding is proposed as the cladding material for the new addition. Staff is concerned that the use of wood weatherboard siding for the new addition will not provide enough visual distinction between the historic section of the residence and the new addition. Staff recommends the use of horizontal fiber cement lap siding, or another appropriate substitute material, with a smooth texture to distinguish between old and new. 31 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: All wood elements will be painted. 2. Obtain required building permits and meet required building codes. G. COMMISSION ACTION July 3, 2024 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission. Mr. Matthew Pekar, property owner, addressed the commission. Mr. Pekar said the pre -application Design Review Committee process was helpful in improving his original design and most, if not all, feedbackfrom the committee was integrated into the formally proposed design. The most significant change to his original design occurred from the AHPP's review of his state and federal historic tax credit application in that the National Park Service condition that the facade modifications that occurred in 1950s, including the synthetic shingles and front porch alterations, be retained. This was upsetting to Mr. Pekar as he wanted to restore the facades and front porch to its c. 1890s appearance, but he decided to viewthe condition as a cost benefit. Mr. Pekar discussed that the only proposed major alteration to the front facade was the removal of the non -historic front gable window and replacement with a window configuration that mimicked the historic window configuration, as evidenced by historically documented. Additionally, Mr. Pekar was open to the commission's feedback regarding the configuration and pane arrangement of the windows along the proposed rear addition. There were no citizens present in objection to the application. Commissioner Fennell said the one -over -one configuration of the windows on the rear addition would help further distinguish the addition from historic, residPnr.P as the design would be simplified and subordinate. Commissioner Nunn commended the Mr. Pekar fortaking on the projectto restore missing historic features of the home and for accepting the feedback of the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Green asked if the tree in the front yard would be preserved. Mr. Pekar said he has had sever professionals assess the health of the tree and each assessment was positive. Mr. Pekar intends to keep the tree. 32 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2024-015 Commissioner Aleman asked Ratzlaff if the shed roof form of the addition would be enough to distinguish the addition from the historic residence regardless of whether wood weatherboard siding or fiber cement siding was used. Ratzlaff said there were many examples in the historic district of historic shed additions to T-shaped and L- shaped single -story, Folk Victorian residences and the addition may at some point appear as a historic addition to an untrained eye. Ratzlaff's additional concern is the durability of new growth wood versus fiber cement siding. Commissioner Aleman asked Mr. Pekar his thoughts on the siding material of the addition. Mr. Pekar said he preferred the use of wood though he appreciates the durability concern. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to approve the application with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Jones), and 1 vacant position. 33 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission NAME: Pankey's Third Addition and Extension: Arkansas Heritage Site LOCATION: Roughly both sides of Cantrell Road between Crockett and Black Streets APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Megan Willmes, NR Program Manager Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1101 North Street, Little Rock, AR Brenda N. Henson President of Village Sisters, Inc. Figure 15. "Josephine Pankey Third Addition Extension to Little Rock, Ark", filed for record 1922. Figure 14. "Josephine Pankey Third Addition to Little Rork. Ark" plat page, filed for record 1909. 34 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS.: ONE Pankey: Arkansas Heritage Site AR Register AREA: roughly 104.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : ~ 362 WARD: 4 HISTORIC DISTRICT: None HISTORIC STATUS: Determined Eligible as an AR Heritage Site CURRE TZONING: Primarily R2-Single Family, Highway 10 Design Overlay District, various A. BACKGROUND Location The subject area is located roughly on both sides of Cantrell Road between Crockett and Black Streets in Little Rock, AR. The area is shown below outlined in black. The boundaries of the Pankey additions are shown in pale yellow. 35 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS.: ONE Pankey: Arkansas Heritage Site, AR Register B. PROPOSAUREQUES T /APPLICANT'S STATEMENT. The application requests to nominate portions of Pankey's Third Addition and Extension to the Arkansas Register of Historic Places as a Arkansas Heritage Site for local significance under Criterion B and Criterion E as an area of geographic importance for its association with Josephine Pankey, African American educator and philanthropist, and her first real estate development. The period of significance is 1907-1954. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See photos in Nomination (Attachment A). D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Atthe time of distribution, there were no comments regardingthis 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: "[Portions of] Pankey's Third Addition [and Third Extension Addition] is being nominated as a Heritage Site under Criterion B and Criterion E with local significance for its association with Josephine Pankey as her first real estate development that has retained it[s] geographic integrity. Pankey'[s] Third Addition was conceived of by Josephine Pankey, an African American educator and philanthropist who worked as a teacher and opened Little Rock's first Black real estate office. She bought land thirteen miles west of Little Rock in 1907 and subdivided it in 1909. She sold the lots to Blacks families seeking a safe community to raise their families, especially after the Flood of 1927 and the lynching of John Carter. The community grew to include multiple stores and a school by the 1960s, but integration forced the closure of Pankey Elementary School in 1965. The community declined with the move of the school and the widening of Cantrell Road, which bisects the neighborhood, in the 1970s and 2010s." In 2019, Senate Bill 557 was passed to establish Act 818 which established procedures for the designation of Arkansas Heritage Sites within the Arkansas Register of Historic Places managed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (Arkansas' State Historic Preservation Office). These procedures are outlined in Attachment B. 36 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS.: ONE Pankey: Arkansas Heritage Site, AR Register The procedures set forth to designate an Arkansas Heritage Site provide an avenue to the recognition of heritage and cultural resources based on geographic significance through the addition of "Criterion E: Geographic importance of a property", "Area" as a property type, and "Geography/Community Identity" as an area of significance. The procedures, congruent with the procedures for the Arkansas Register, only require Heritage Site nominations to be reviewed by the Arkansas State Review Board. The nomination is provided to the Little Rock Historic District Commission as a courtesy review for comments. The nomination is scheduled to be heard at the April 3rd, 2024 State Review Board meeting. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the support of the nomination of Pankey's Third Addition and Extension Addition as an Arkansas Heritage Site and advocates the level of significance reflect state significance and the boundaries of the heritage site include the entire boundaries of the original plats. G. COMMISSION ACTION ) ily,3,.2024 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Nunn asked what benefits the designation would provide to the Pankey neighborhood. Ratzlaff said the nomination was submitted by Mrs. Henson on behalf of Village Sisters, Inc. and that the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) said the nomination was an initiative of the Pankey neighborhood. Ratzlaff said the designation of the area as an Arkansas Heritage Site provides an avenue for recognition that is not available through the National Register of Historic Places or other criterion of the Arkansas Register of Historic Places. The nomination would create a record of the area's historical significance which would be archived with the AHPP. Commissioner Fennell said there is not a lot of documentation that currently exists about the neighborhood's history, but there are many people who are alive that know its history. He said an oral historywould further supportthis nomination. Fennell said the land encompassing the Pankey neighborhood is valuable as it abuts Cantrell Road, making it difficult to maintain physical integrity in the face of development pressures. He also said that the neighborhood was home to a significant number of Little Rock African American masons. He said it was a strong community before the [Pankey Elementary] school closed. 37 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS.: ONE Pankey: Arkansas Heritage Site, AR Register Commissioner Green made a motion to approve the nomination with staff's recommendations. Commissioner DeGraff seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Jones), and 1 vacant position. 38 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review NAME: Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review LOCATION: Ordinance Amendment to Little Rock Historic Preservation Code APPLICANT: Staff A. BACKGROUND There are currently no explicit procedures set in the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code regarding administrative approvals. Currently, Planning & Development staff administratively review projects within the MacArthur Park Local Ordinance Historic District that do not involve a change in design, material, or outer appearance, such as ordinary maintenance or repair. The permits issued for these reviews are called Certificates of Compliance ("COC"). These reviews do not require the filing of a COA or for the application to be scheduled for a public hearing to be heard before the Historic District Commission. Administrative reviewthrough a COC does not prevent ordinary maintenance or repair project types from occurring in the district, but reviews in order to confirm that the project scope and methodology do not go beyond ordinary maintenance, repair, replacement in -kind, and the work does not result in a change in design, material, or outer appearance. A COC identifies the scope of the proposed changes, must be issued before certain building permits can be issued, and must be displayed at the project site along with any other relevant permits. Additionally, there are several project types which go beyond ordinary maintenance and repair that the Commission has previously set standards and procedures for administrative review, requiring that all standards and procedures are met in order for a COC to be issued. Below is a list of current project types and standards that are administratively reviewed: a. Architectural Shingles Staff may approve the replacement of asphalt shingles with architectural shingles on a case -by -case basis. b. Rain Gutter Systems Staff may approve the installation of hang -on gutters, downspouts, and French drains on a case -by -case basis. This does not include the installation or removal of boxed (or built-in) gutters. 1. Downspouts are located away from significant architectural features. 39 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review 2. Downspouts are painted to be camouflaged against structure. c. Historical Markers Staff may approve the installation of historical markers on a case -by -case basis. d. Mechanical Systems Staff may approve the installation and replacement of mechanical units on a case -by -case basis. 1. Replacement units will be installed in the same location as the existing or relocated to a rear fagade orthe back of the building and be screened by fencing/landscaping to reduce visibility from the public right-of-way. 2. Any condenser units and supply lines that are replaced where visible from the public right-of-way will be eliminated. New supply Lines will not be installed along the exterior of the building visible from the right-of-way. e. Sign Refacing Staff may approve the replacement of signage on a case -by -case basis. f. Solar Panels Staff may approve the installation of solar panels not visible from the public right-of-way. g. Storm Windows Staff may approve the installation of storm windows with the following specifications on a case -by -case basis: 3. Proportion and profile must match the design of the original window, including the sash. 4. Exterior must be wood, baked -on enamel, or anodized aluminum in a color to match the window sash paint color. 5. Must fit within the window casing and not overlap the trim or brick mold. 6. For originally fixed windows and casement windows that are non - operable, storm windows must be full view. 7. Finished must be non -reflective. h. Handrails 40 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review Staff may approve the installation of exterior handrails with the following specifications on a case -by -case basis. This does not include handrails for porch steps. 1. Handrails to be constructed of simple metal or ornamental iron components. Materials should be black or painted to match trim color. 2. The design should be the least obtrusive yet functional option. 3. Posts shall be square stock. 4. The top rail should shed water. 5. Handrail to be installed only at steps. No installation is approved on flat or sloped surfaces. 6. Railing height shall be not less than 36" above nosing of steps. Nosing is defined at the leading front edge of the tread. 7. Staff must visit the site and approve the installation location before approval is granted. Past Action & Discussion On September 1, 2022, the Commission approved requirements for the administrative approval of storm windows and handrails. On February 1, 2024, the Commission discussed that the creation of new design guidelines presents the opportunity to clarify existing procedures for administrative approvals and consider inclusion of lower impact project types for administrative review to incentivize compliance. The Commission asked Staff to present an ordinance amendment for this purpose. B. PROPOSAUR—EQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Staff proposes codifyingthe existing and proposed COA approval authority delegated to administrative staff by approval of the proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment A). The ordinance amendment adds the below language to the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code concerning Certificate of Appropriateness requirements: "Administrative Review. The commission shall have the authority to determine when work is an appropriate improvement which constitutes ordinary maintenance and does not materially affect properties within the area of influence of the property for which the work is to be performed and the special character of the district. The commission shall have the authority to delegate to administrative staff the ability to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, without public hearing and notice. 41 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review (1) All project requirements and conditions for work delegated to administrative review must have been previously approved by the commission. (2) The type of work delegated to administrative review must be specifically identified in the guidelines adopted for the local ordinance district." The ordinance amendment also proposes to remove the below language from the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code: "Repairs considered as part of a building's ordinary maintenance are those that do notchange but simply upgrade a structure, including painting, replacing deteriorated porch flooring, stairs, siding or trim in the same material and texture, replacing screens, gutters or downspouts. These repairs shall not require a certificate of appropriateness. Improvements of this type are specifically identified in the guidelines adopted for the historic district commission." In addition to the proposed ordinance amendment, Staff recommends the approval of the below project types and requirements for the administrative issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, also called a Certificate of Compliance. New proposed project types and requirements are shown as underlined text. Project types beyond ordinary maintenance would be approved on a case -by -case basis and administrative staff would have the authority to forward any application to the Historic District Commission for its approval as staff sees necessary. a. Ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature which does not involve a change in design, material, or outer appearance. b. The replacement of existing asphalt shingle roofing with architectural shingle roofing on any building or structure. c. The replacement or installation of hang -on rain gutter systems, including flashing and downspouts, where downspouts are located away from architectural features and are painted to be camouflaged against the building or structure. d. The installation of ground mounted and flush mounted historical markers made of non -shiny materials and flush mounted markers are installed in mortar joints when attached to a masonry surface. e. The installation of mechanical equipment that is located in the rear of the property, or on the side of the property setback at least halfway 42 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review between the front and rear walls, and is entirely screened from public view. f. The installation of storm windows where the proportion and profile match the design of the original windows, the storm fits the window casing and does not overlap the trim or brick mold, the exterior is wood, baked -on enamel, or anodized aluminum in a color that matches the window sash paint color, the finish is non -reflective, and, in the case of originally fixed or casement windows that are non -operable, the storm windows are full view. g. The installation of handrails only along steps, not including porch steps or along flat or sloped surfaces without steps, constructed of simple metal or ornamental iron, painted black, with square stock posts, a top rail that sheds water, a railing height that is no less than 36 inches above the nosing of the steps. h. The installation of solar photovoltaic arrays and system equipment not visible from the public right-of-way, that does not require the removal of historic materials or alter historic roof configurations and features and installation, if removed, will not damage existing historic building materials. i. Emergency, temporary, maintenance and repair which does not permanently alter the distinctive features of the structure or property, all required city permits are obtained, and theowner of the property commits to apply for a certificate of appropriateness to make permanent repairs within 60 days of the date on which the Certificate of Compliance is issued for the emergency, temporary repairs. j. The replacement of an existing sign where only replacing the sign face and the installation of signage where flush mounted toa building or structure, made of wood or non-shiny material, installed in mortar joints when attached ot a masonry surgace, and no large than one square foot in surface area. k. The removal or installation of a non-historic, detached accessory building, 200 square feet or less in area, meeting all city zoning and code requirements. l. The replacement or repair of historic and non-historic site features and streetscape features including sidewalks, streetlamps, curbs, 43 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review driveways, stepping blocks, hitching posts, retaining walls, steps, gates and ft nin— adottherfUrnishin s. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are currently no explicit procedures set in the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code regarding administrative approvals. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At the time of distribution, there were no public comments. All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock with areas intersecting the MacArthur Park Local Ordinance District were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: Staff has considered previous actions and discussions of the Commission and has taken statewide and nationwide historic preservation commission regulations and preservation ordinances under advisement. Procedures and regulations for local ordinance district within the state of Arkansas must be in agreement with the Arkansas Historic Districts Act. Certified Local Government programs and local ordinance districts throughout the state, including Fort Smith and Eureka Springs, set procedures and requirements for administrative approvals for minor impact project types beyond ordinary maintenance. Fort Smtih's procedures and requirements are specifically codified. Codifying procedures for administrative approvals and identifying project types and requirements in adopted design guidelines provides reliable treatment of project types, provides clear standards for applicants and staff, and incentivizes compliance for minor impact projects and property maintenance. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed ordinance amendment, Attachment A, to set specific procedures for the administrative issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness for specific project types. A redlined copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached as Attachment B. G. COMMISSION ACTION April 4, 2024 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Nunn was supportive of the concept to set a clear procedure for administrative approvals of COAs with scopes of work beyond ordinary maintenance. He was more supportive of a flexible framework adopted by ordinance which pointed to the design guidelines for detailed standards, rather than strict detailed standards adopted by ordinance. He expressed he is always in favor of streamlining the review and approval process 44 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review where it was beneficial to, and he was supportive of the proposed projects outlined in the staff analysis to be delegated to administrative review only. Commissioner Nunn said the proposed project types are typically a quickturnaround for applicants and are minor impact projects that have been previously determined to be appropriate and compatible with the local ordinance district. Commissioner Fennell said the commission trusted the skill and judgement of current staff. He expressed concern that expanding the authority of staff for administrative approvals would prove to have a negative impact if there was a staff change. Deputy City Attorney, Sherri Latimer, said that administrative approvals could be delegated to staff with limited discretionary ability by the commission predetermining the standards and requirements of the projects in order for it to be administratively reviewed. Ratzlaff said the second example within the staff analysis could achieve the flexibility that Commissioner Nunn spoke to as well as achieve setting discretionary limitations of staff that Commissioner Fennell was concerned with. Commissioner Nunn asked if specific project types delegated to administrative review could be reassigned to the commission's review down the road. Ratzlaff said they could. She said that if a project type that was delegated to staff for administrative review, such as the installation of new storm windows, became an issue for the commission or the local ordinance district community down the road, the commission could take action at a regular or called meeting to reassign it to commission review only. (Note: delegated to administrative review on September 1, 2022, by the Historic District Commission.) Commissioner Nunn said he was in favor of the proposed process. Deputy City Attorney Latimer questioned whether the design guidelines would need to be updated everytime the commission added or removed a projecttype to orfrom administrative review. Ratzlaff said they should be updated since they are meant to be a resource to property owners, residents, and the commission. She said it was best to make these determinations in batch now as the new guidelines were being proposed, but if changes occur, they would just be included in the next update. Commissioner Nunn asked if an applicant would be denied if they requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project that did not meet staff' criteria of approval. Ratzlaff said staff would not deny the application, but instead refer it to the commission. If staff were unable to issue a COA administratively, the application would be docketed for a public hearing to be heard by the commission. 45 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO Ordinance Amendment: Administrative Review Commissioner DeGraff asked why staff was proposing this process at this time. He felt the commission did not review many Certificates of Appropriateness at this point and agendas were typically light. Ratzlaff said it was good practice for a commission of this type to have a smooth process in place for a of high -volume applications in case another local ordinance district was adopted. It also typically creates good will with local ordinance district property owners to have a process which incentivizes compliance with the regulations for minor impact projects. Often, property owners can feel that a public hearing is unnecessary or disproportionate to the request of approval for a smaller scope of work. Ratzlaff said, having fewer public hearing items also frees up the commission during meetings to discuss strategic initiatives and goals for historic districts and sites citywide. CommissionerAleman asked if there was a benefit to codifying specific project types that the commission always wants to be administratively reviewed, such as the removal of chain link fencing, and identify other project types in the design guidelines. Deputy City Attorney Latimer said that it was her opinion that beyond ordinary maintenance, it was best practice to determine projects delegated for administrative review in the design guidelines so thatthe commission always had the ability to rescind or reassign this authority. After additional discussion, the commission agreed that the second example within the staff analysis was preferable to the first example. Deputy City Attorney Latimer and Ratzlaff were asked to prepare a staff report and draft ordinance for the next meeting for the commission to consider. COMMISSION ACTION June 6. 2024 No action could be taken due to lack of a quorum. COMMISSION ACTION July 3, 2024 Ratzlaff made a presentation to the commission. There was a short discussion to confirm that the subsections of the ordinance amendment were identified correctly. Commissioner Aleman made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment with the amendment that the mention of "subsection c" be corrected to refer to "subsection d" in Sec. 23-120 (e) of the code. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Jones), and 1 vacant position. 46 July 3, 2024 Historic District Commission VII. Other Matters a. Pankey's Third Addition and Extension: Arkansas Heritage Site b. COA Procedures for Administrative Issuance c. CAMP Training, October 4, 2024 Ratzlaff reminded the commission of an upcoming CAMP training opportunity in Hot Springs and the requirement to register for the training. d. Enforcement Issues 418 E 151" Street—u n permitted installation of fencing e. Certificates of Compliance HDC2024-021-1420 Cumberland —exterior repairs, reroof, rear deck removal, gutter installation HDC2024-022-700 S. Rock Street —exterior and site repairs VIII. Adjournment There being no further business for the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M. Attest: Chair Date Secretary Date 47