HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOA applications{1U+ iLITTLE ROCK
:..j
R�PTUSTORICDISTRICT
1 !•�:'r
j1
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
1. Date of Public Hearing:
2. Address of Property:
day of
Application Date:
pG7o-6r�
2000 at Sao P.M.
RZo RVCV, s-r- Rv« 172
if h7c.
3. Legal Description of Property: Lo — 5 6 LOCK LV+ jqjel G 1evl�t Cr r �1' CF
4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax):
5. Owner's Agent:
6. Project Description (additional pages may be added):
19ICec7 7�77-y ;�- 71 AID /-,� Aye
3
- f-rA4--
r� �-� 1�wlf✓6 fcwa7.�c�'T� � wi r�r� 3� ZYry�'
69mlic-71 wl7Vrr/ TO 4ys p5s" S7q,�rl Zf7�=
J. � �� �� '� Frr�r2 Fvo> �•4c� i1= A-uowa:�
7. Estimated Cost of Improvements:
8. Category of Work: I II
9. Notification Requirements: i/ Yyj(properties wj
10. Signature of Owner or Agent:
III IV (Staff use)
150 feet) No
Little Rock Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff):
— Denied — Deferred _ Approved _ Approved with Conditions
Staff Signature:
NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify
Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property
from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or
staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent.
Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Housing and Community Development
\Stem 500 W. Markham Street, #120W ♦ Little Rock, AR 72201 ♦ Phone: 501-244-5420 ♦ Fax: 501-399-3461
SLCity of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION-
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PREPARED BY: V. Anne Guthrie DATE: 27 April 2000
APPLICANT: Glenn Kubeczka
ADDRESS: 920 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: Repair exterior of structure with new shutters, decorative ironwork and
fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is
located north of I-630. It is sited on the west side of Rock Street, between 9th and 1 Oth streets. It
is the sole structure on the block that is ca. 1960-70s and is non-contributing. It is a tan brick
two -storied apartments, recently purchased by the property owner.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
objections, by letter or phone, to the applicant's request; one letter was received in support.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staff recommendation that the request to repair the
structure by painting, installing decorative shutters and ironwork be approved with the
condition that should the scope of the exterior work change, the LRHDC staff will be notified
and appropriate measures taken.
City of Little Rock _
Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs
500 West Markham, Suite 120 West
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone (501) 371-6825
Fax (501) 399-3461 August 10, 2000
Glenn Kubeczka
7907 Sayles Road
Jacksonville, AR 72076
Subject: 920 Rock Street, Little Rock
Dear Mr. Kubeczka:
On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC), I am writing this letter to inform you that
the property at 920 Rock Street, located in MacArthur Park Historic District, is in noncompliance with the city
ordinance and the design guidelines for the district. On May 4, 2000, you requested approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) to paint, install shutters, ornamental ironwork and an iron fence in the front yard. Your
request was approved on condition that the ironwork and shutters be reviewed and authorized by staff; a copy
of the minutes and design guidelines are attached for your information.
On June 13, 2000, you submitted the required paperwork for the ornamental ironwork and the decorative shutters;
your submission was approved by the LRHDC Chair and staff. On June 15, you telephoned and requested
approval to remove the existing white board fence on the north, south and west sides ofthe apartments. You were
advised that approval to remove the existing fence was contingent on the erection of a new one. As requested,
you submitted a drawing of both the existing 64" fence and your proposal, which was latticed and 36" in height.
After a discussion with the LRHDC Chair, your proposed design was not accepted due to its height and the
submitted design was not acceptable in terms of its compatibility with the district's design guidelines. However,
the side and rear fences were removed soon thereafter.
As a result of your non-compliance with the procedures of the LRHDC, you are requested to appear before the
LRHDC at its September 7, 2000, meeting at 5 p.m. in order to discuss the unauthorized fence removal. A
replacement fence must be installed within two months on the same facades, of similar opacity and be equal in
height as the fence that was removed.
If you have any questions, you may call me at 244-5420 or the city's legal representative, Anthony Black, at 371-
4527. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
V. Anne Guthrie
Historic Preservation Administrator
VAG:AWB:dab
Enclosures
0
430lVE F I NAN C IAL AG E N CYs'
5�� Z,5 ( 2-0 o v
GLENN A. KUBECZKA
Senior Planning Specialist
H/Sra, fe- �fs--re(er
l 2a a✓
!
i
'77 'irr(
VZO �D CSC s�
/h✓ rf 14fe4 rro&l iE�W e4-
fl/"P/�0��►%'C���j S '� �-��� G�rF'f Sr�� .��K%(/.'vS � a�7•�cs
YeC'DNS l��yly 7 0�.
rWt?� `nl.
i
La
2 _ 1�,�4yvin?v • SlZt= f iNR7r'�(/fGS�5Pcz5
Estate Planning + Annuities + Medicaid Planning
7907 SAYLES ROAD ■ JACKSONVILLE, AR 72076 • 501-988-5542
PP-DPosh TKke-E FWOrT"L PIcLr-T F",ILC (e2 F='v#C Four Trye r=�++cowc=n
Po"N YgO w H fiE " F0 L- LGVJ5 ; u-o (-ter- S C NE oN P2O P &V-7Y LjA L Fwzm F&u1 Q f-
B ula%la Co H 7 ; Sdvt * 506 px! Pr20Pr zY L!
F ieem Fwa, -f OF BLr16. ro i2C eF (3LD6,.--- A~ bD'•
RtrF. DE:S164J 9&-V(e4) Ovr6tZ4t,,� Rlye MAr,,-�7.,,V r'�lzK t4tSTa2fC-
"OUP 43 11`-I) 4-- 12 C
q!'W'DF i%CV-L-T- 3"SPICE
FQgr-N�
Go-Okr-
3 10 K Lf, —(a cc,
September 2000
Little Rock Historic District Commission
City Hall
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Regarding: Rock Terrace fence
Dear Commission Members:
We respectfully request that the original fence, that was removed between Rock Terrace and property
located at 914 Rock Street, be reconstructed as soon as possible.
The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable privacy and a much
needed buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit apartment building (Rock Terrace) next door.
The entrances to all 5 Rock Terrace apartments are located on this north side of the property - facing
our side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood
boards painted white. There is an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was
the only buffer to all the noise and activity gcnerated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the fence
now gone, all 5 front doors open directly within a few feet of our property, all 5 entrances and exits
facing us (not facing the street or the alley).
The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. With entrances so close
to the property line, a directive towards the street or towards the parking area is needed.
We feel as though a fence similar to the original in opacity and height is necessary to protect the
integrity of the surrounding properties. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time
the apartments were constructed. At the time of construction, there were no building setback re-
quirements, the opaque 6' high fence served and was required for the buffer. The original fence was
appropriate to the site and to the neighborhood, provided protection visually, as well as a noise
buffer........ and, very importantly, had been there since the inception of the Little Rock Historic
District Ordinance in 1976.
I would hope, in order to protect the surrounding properties from the impact of this multi- unit
structure, that a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until a 6' high, opaque fence is replaced.
Sincerely,
Randy Mourning & Molly Satterfield
914 Rock Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
RICHARD C. BUTLER, JR.
417 EAST 10TH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 624
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203
501 375-4302
30 September 2000
Little Rock Historic District Commission
500 West Markham # 120W
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: 920 South Rock, Little Rock, within
the MacArthur Park Historic District
Greetings:
This letter is in support of Glenn A. Kubeczka's application for a
certificate of appropriateness to place a fence on his property line as
long as it is not incompatible with the MacArthur Park Historic District
Design Guidelines Handbook. Fortunately for our neighborhood, he has
greatly improved a five -unit structure, eliminating a perceived nuisance
by cleaning up the property, painting, adding shutters and iron
ornamentation to a non-contributing structure and removing an
unattractive and rotting high fence that created hiding places and
concealed suspicious activity for several years. For creating this "old
world" appearance he deserves commendation.
I have resided in this block since 1965 and have owned my home
at 417 East loth Street since 1971. Since then I have acquired
ownership in and restored or improved the other three 19' century
residential structures in the same block. After a visual inspection of 920
Rock Terrace, I could feel improvement --open sight lines creating the
impression of more light and security --after removal of the old fence.
For esthetic reasons, I have removed all fences from the front parts of
my properties as I acquired them and only have high fences behind the
residential structures.
Little Rock Historic District Commission, 30 September 2000 — Page 2
After my architects (John Truemper and Frank Effland of the
Cromwell Firm) researched the original design of my front porch rail
(c1859), it was determined to be lattice. It was restored as such in
1976-77 and I still like it so much that within the past month I have had
it reworked without changing its basic appearance. Therefore, I would
not oppose Mr. Kubeczka's original request for a lattice fence, although
most lattice usage has traditionally been for porches and foundation
veneers rather than fences.
As I see it, Mr. Kubeczka should have four options: (1) Leave the
property open and fenceless restoring all sight lines and increasing a
feeling of small-town safety, absent any evidence of fencing with
previous structures on the property. (2) Build an iron fence about
three -feet tall compatible and consistent with the new ornamental
ironwork --since the five-plex is neither a bungalow nor craftsman. (3)
Build a wood fence (low, about three -feet tall) either picket or lattice.
Or (4) build a low (c3') fence from the middle of the structure toward
Rock Street and, if the property owners desire a high privacy fence, a
high (c6') fence back from the half -way point of the structure or farther
back toward the alley. A high fence closer to Rock Street than half -way
back from the front to the back walls would violate the principles set
forth in the Design Guidelines Handbook which limits high fences to
rear yards like mine.
Thank you for this opportunity to react to Mr. Kubeczka's notice.
Respectfully yours,
Richard C. Butler, Jr.
I�litLI( S4 c-72; ft�l� 7,2j-33� 5
-7 --)L2-7
C-3
[DSO P_ �.72-2C;1
�l ! OyZr _31Z
CeAi
Pm 6�7 -tics
elf-
ri �; �� ��-Iz�CVlvte�=�L: hy►�._ •,�.�� � � z c� 7�'"`��� ��'3l
L�) 6FVP!�1,
Little Rock Historic District Commission November 2, 2000
City Hall, 500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Regarding: Rock Terrace fence demolition/application
Dear Commission Members:
We regret that we are unable to attend this meeting. Because we are unable to voice our
opinion/response/request in person, we would hereby like to reiterate our position and make
clear our opposition to the submitted application for a 4ft. picket fence at 920 Rock Street.
As we stated in our earlier letter, we heartily applaud Mr. Kubeczka for cleaning up and
renovating Rock Terrace. It was previously a crime ridden property. We are happy with his
efforts and the benefits to the area.
As owners of the small 1860's neo-classical cottage next door, we ask that the original
fence (which was removed in early summer from the property line between Rock Terrace and
our cottage) be reconstructed in like fashion to the original/demolished fence for the following
reasons:
The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable
privacy and a much needed buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit
apartment building (Rock Terrace).
2. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time the apartments were
constructed. At the time of construction, there were no building setback require
ments, the opaque 6ft. high fence served - and was required - for the buffer. The
original fence was appropriate to the site, appropriate in scale, appropriate for a
modern building. It served the neighborhood - providing protection visually, as
well as providing a noise buffer.
3. The entrances to all five (5) Rock Terrace apartments are located on this north
side of the property - facing our side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet
in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood boards painted white. There is
an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was the only buffer
to all the noise and activity generated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the
fence now gone, all 5 front doors open directly within a few feet of our property.
All 5 entrances and exits are facing us (not facing the street or the alley).
4. The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. With
entrances so close to the property line, within a few feet, a directive towards the
street or towards the parking area is needed.
5. We have heard the argument that an opaque privacy fence would allow a place for
page 2
criminals to lurk. We simply do not buy this rationale. The current tenants do
not seem to be a threat, or to be threatened.
6. Our request is that the privacy fence be replaced along Rock Terrace's north
property line. We do not see a necessity for a buffer at the rear or along the
south property line of Rock Terrace. This fence/or lack thereof, singularly
impacts our cottage because of Rock Terrace's location of all entrances and
exits. The fence located on the north property line is the only issue here.
7. It is our opinion that a 4 foot "victorian", "gothic" or "picket" fence is not
appropriate for the scale of Rock Terrace. The 5 unit , 2 story, brick, flat
roofed, modern structure spans practically from property line to property line.
A small victorian fence is not in keeping with the mass and bulk of this
building.
8. The Guidelines were primarily formulated to address "historic"
structures. Given Rock Terrace's modern vintage, style and design for a
modern building, or for a suitable modern fence, are obviously not
specifically addressed in Historic District Guidelines. Intentionally, the
guidelines have a very broad application, and warn against being "too
imitative" of historic styles so that the new can be distinguished from historic
styles. The original Rock Terrace fence was appropriate in its application and
the design worked quite well - form followed function, the fence was a buffer.
9. And lastly, a matter of procedure, the fence was an established structure,
having been there since the inception of the Little Rock Historic District
in 1976. The fence should never have been demolished without a formal
public hearing: including application, full review, and proper notification -
legal notice to property owners in the area of influence and legal ad published
in the newspaper.
In conclusion, we are indeed appreciative of Mr. Kubeczka for improving his property,
we do respectfully ask that the Commission insure that our property not be negatively
impacted in the process.
Thank you,
Randy Mourning & Molly Satterfield
914 Rock Street
The side location of Rock Terrace's
5 apartment entrances impact neighboring cottage
ROCK STREET
w
914
Rock 920
hock
Rock
K Terrace
I
ALLEY
CUMEERLAND STREET
NZ7
At
Ar
vi
9p
iiiit_J
r
,
Ati" 4.
IC
1: A
=-
`:?, LITTLE ROCK
1 j � `��'f�-IBCOl I 7(�\
.�i11i �Y V 1
i�
D I S T R I CT
•�r fIYiY;,�.
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Date:
1.
Date Public Hearing: �' `� '
of day of J 2000
at P.M.
2.
Address of Property:
3.
Legal Description of Property: IUwg- KE dgl,�fo
e°f
�lr
-
4.
Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax):
720 7(0
-(0/-29f -12�I2,
5.
Owner's Agent:
6.
Project Description (additional pages may be added): 54 ZY7e1---E_
IW7V�aw
(f-ifCtdL� (,�Gy G�%fjcICfCt` �clt f�Gprr/�_ ZFft I(IbiZ�i �SUF fPc�lf
g PAP A-n-� c b . Co �.0 [�'i�.r/ 70�
7.
Estimated Cost of Improvements: !2�
8.
Category of Work: I II III
IV (Staff use)
9.
Notification Requirements: s roperties within 150 feet)
No
10.
Signature of Owner or Agent:
Little Rock Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff):
— Denied _ Deferred _ Approved _ Approved with Conditions
Staff Signature:
NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify
Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property
from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or
staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent.
Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Housing and Community Development
500 W. Markham Street, #120W + Little Rock, AR 72201 + Phone: 501-244-5420 + Fax: 501-399-3461
n�R,
p.. 3 ` PtcKrT
e
n
1�:1�.r'�s i• .iF'. :.`•fit `lS: i,:✓c! r�L�,6-: �'•I/!iL -Y.LG� fu
t
30`
f ev pvSt5j� TK9-e-� R;olrTa LL P i cvt7 Fwtc (o P F-O,;#Q
FCv -r
TA-LL t r /V«owI=a
- "JY I) WHfir
" f,�LLCVJS C. Nop-C 5(t>& oA) P2aPc.zY Li.,(
FWCM F&A�1 oi-
�R �
50tL�w16 (o f� LLrY-__ �i'P���Crr4vfYrL7 117�
5s7[•7!F 51De- del P►eDi'h�7Y "o-F
Fla -cm Fiewl O r- aasd &. Tv Q.c off- i3�D G _ _ _
APMIeG
feP'
RFF, DE:S1G1)
FEV( 4) Fart
b4tS7c2fC k�c1T,
q."WIDF P%c:ktT- -," SN,+cc
rkD, C-q-
GoY-htL
Q'NI5t7 =T'
40ME F I NAN C IAL AG EN CYsm
GLENN A. KUBECZKA
Senior Planning Specialist
Sr7�T Z,s � zoo v
�1��,�oGK E=f-/S�vz�/G �fS7,e�CY �'dfr,MrsSiov
Ali o �.' lli�g-2K{{� �iflz� C � �✓
72-2-e f
i
f�rr�T,q�e-
M) TFfz� titfc ' .� �Il
PG p�F �itJ?� CNS- 0�r�- - of
!fPv
�Br� Cows rt��y1�T opt%,
rWhW- �la;.
/
CCiZtrr�7�` dr /�n�'eop/'1.4z�ti�fs
2 +� r% S%C'� t Ati97r�rr9t5�SPCzS
/�/'vlaa�°1'f' Dr-✓��rS �I�iGr� ISM
Estate Planning . Annuities • Medicaid Planning
7907 SAYLES ROAD + JACKSONVILLE, AR 72076 ■ 501-988-5542
Little Rock Historic District Commission
City Hall, 500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
COPY
October 2000
Regarding: Rock Terrace fence demolitionlappUcation - Public Hearing, Sp.m. Nov. 2, 2000
Dear Commissioners:
We applaud our neighbor, Glen Kubeczka, for cleaning up and renovating Rock Terrace ( 920 Rock
Street). It was previously an eyesore and a detriment to our neighborhood. We are delighted with his efforts
and the benefits to the entire area.
However, we respectfully request that the original fence, which was removed from the north property line
of Rock Terrace, between the property located at 914 Rock Street, be reconstructed in a similar fashion as the
originaUdemolished fence for the following reasons:
1. The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable privacy and a much needed
buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit apartment building (Rock Terrace) next door.
2. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time the apartments were constructed. At the time
of construction, there were no building setback requirements, the opaque 6' high fence served and was re-
quired for the buffer. The original fence was appropriate to the site, apj)ropriate in scale, appropriate for a
modern building. It served the neighborhood - providing protection v.. ly, as well as providing a noise
buffer.
3. The entrances to all 5 Rock Terrace apartments are Iocated on this north side of the property - facing our
side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood boards painted
white. There is an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was the only buffer to all the
noise and activity generated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the fence now gone, all 5 front doors open
directly within a few feet of our property. All 5 entrances and exits are facing us (not facing the street or the
alley).
4. The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. With entrances so close to the
property line, within a few feet, a directive towards the street or towards the parking area is needed.
5. We have heard the argument that an opaque privacy fence would allow a place for criminals to lurk. We
simply do not buy this rationale. The current tenants do not seem to be a threat, or to be threatened-
6. Our request is that the privacy fence be replaced along Rock Terrace's north property line. We do not see
necessity for a buffer at the rear or along the south property line of Rock terrace. This fence/or lack thereof,
singularly impacts our cottage because of Rock Terrace's location of all entrances and exits. The fence
located on the north property line is the only issue here.
7. It is our opinion that a 4 foot "Victorian", "Gothic" or "picket" fence is not appropriate for the scale of
Rock Terrace. The 5 unit , 2 story, brick, flat roofed, modern structure spans practically from property line to
property line. A small Victorian fence is not in keeping with the mass and bulk of this building.
S_ In addition, given Rock Terrace's modern vintage, style and design for a modem building or for a suitable
fence is obviously not addressed in the Historic District Guidelines for a predominantly turn of the century
neighborhood. The original fence design worked quite well -form followed function, it was a buffer.
9. And lastly, a matter of procedure, the fence was an established structure, having been there since the
inception of the Little Rock Historic District in 1976. It should never have been demolished without a formal
public hearing. including application, full review, and proper notification - legal notice to property owners in
the area of influence and legal ad published in the newspaper.
While we are sincerely appreciative of and indebted to Mr. Kubeczka for improving our neighborhood,
we ask you, the Commission, to insure that our property not be negatively impacted in the process.
Again, we enthusiastically support improvements to this property, save this small fence issue. We do
hope you will be sensitive to our concerns and require this one section of fencing be replaced in like fashion to
its original.
Respectfi:lly,
r , r
Randy Mourning Molly�attezf el
914 Rock Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 telephone 225-3355
September 2000
Little Rock Historic District Commission
City Hall
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Regarding: Rock Terrace fence
Dear Commission Members:
We respectfully request that the original fence, that was removed between Rock Terrace and property
located at 914 Rock Street, be reconstructed as soon as possible.
The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable privacy and a much
needed buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit apartment building (Rock Terrace) next door.
The entrances to all 5 Rock Terrace apartments are located on this north side of the property - facing
our side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood
boards painted white. There is an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was
the only buffer to all the noise and activity generated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the fence
now gone, all 5 front doors open directly within a few feet of our property, all 5 entrances and exits
facing us (not facing the street or the alley).
The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. With entrances so close
to the property line, a directive towards the street or towards the parking area is needed.
We feel as though a fence similar to the original in opacity and height is necessary to protect the
integrity of the surrounding properties. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time
the apartments were constructed. At the time of construction, there were no building setback re-
quirements, the opaque 6' high fence served and was required for the buffer. The original fence was
appropriate to the site and to the neighborhood, provided protection visually, as well as a noise
buffer........ and, very importantly, had been there since the inception of the Little Rock Historic
District Ordinance in 1976.
I would hope, in order to protect the surrounding properties from the impact of this multi- unit
structure, that a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until a 6' high, opaque fence is replaced.
Sincerely,
Randy Mourning & Molly Satterfield
914 Rock Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
October 1, 2000
Little Rock Historic District Commission
City Hall
500 W. Markam St.
Little Rock, Ar. 72201
Re: Fence Problems at 920 Rock St.
Dear Commission Members:
My daughter and I are owners of apartments at 919 and 923 Cumberland and 304, 306
and 308 E. 10th. We are so pleased and appreciative that Mr. Glenn Kubeczka has
renovated the property at 920 Rock St. This property had been such a detriment
to this area and created many problems for property owners. Our tenants have ex-
perienced a number of crimes, and we have spent a considerable amount on repairs
and security.
The Little Rock Police Chief does not recommend that a six foot privacy fence
(such as requested by the adjacent property owners) to be installed, as this
type of fence allows for concealment of criminal activity. As landlords, safety
of our tenants is a major concern, as tenants will move if an area is unsafe.
If the Quapaw Assn, McArthur Dist. and L.R.H.D.C. desire to keep this a viable,
safe area for people to live, then safety for people should be a top priority,
not the height of a fence! Property owners should assist the police as much as
possible to keep the area safe.
Mr. Kubeczka's application meets your own requirement for a wood picket fence.
Also, a three or four foot fence serves as well as a six foot fence to direct
traffic out and from plaintiff's property. Sidewalks also serve this purpose!
One other thing, why should Mr. Kubeczka be required to install a six foot fence
at the rear of the property? I don't recall other properties that abut this
alley that have six foot fences in the rear!
We urge you to support Mr. Kubeczka's application for a three or four foot wood
picket fence. We believe that this much improved multi -unit apartment will be an
asset to the neighborhood now. All adjacent and nearby property wwners should be
thankful and considerate, as it helps the area and all of us.
It is impossible for us to attend the hearing, but hopefully the board and the
property owners in attendance will give Mr. Kubeczka a standing ovation and grate-
ful thanks for renovating this former crime -infested, run-down property and for-
get the pettiness!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marian Butler
1104 Hester
Jonesboro, Ar. 72401
RICHARD C. BUTLER, JR.
417 EAST 10TH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 624
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203
501 375-4302
30 September 2000
Little Rock Historic District Commission
500 West Markham # 120W
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: 920 South Rock, Little Rock, within
the MacArthur Park Historic District
Greetings:
This letter is in support of Glenn A. Kubeczka's application for a
certificate of appropriateness to place a fence on his property line as
long as it is not incompatible with the MacArthur Park Historic District
Design Guidelines Handbook. Fortunately for our neighborhood, he has
greatly improved a five -unit structure, eliminating a perceived nuisance
by cleaning up the property, painting, adding shutters and iron
ornamentation to a non-contributing structure and removing an
unattractive and rotting high fence that created hiding places and
concealed suspicious activity for several years. For creating this "old
world" appearance he deserves commendation.
I have resided in this block since 1965 and have owned my home
at 417 East loth Street since 1971. Since then I have acquired
ownership in and restored or improved the other three 19th century
residential structures in the same block. After a visual inspection of 920
Rock Terrace, I could feel improvement --open sight lines creating the
impression of more light and security --after removal of the old fence.
For esthetic reasons, I have removed all fences from the front parts of
my properties as I acquired them and only have high fences behind the
residential structures.
Little Rock Historic District Commission, 30 September 2000 — Page 2
After my architects (John Truemper and Frank Effland of the
Cromwell Firm) researched the original design of my front porch rail
(c1859), it was determined to be lattice. It was restored as such in
1976-77 and I still like it so much that within the past month I have had
it reworked without changing its basic appearance. Therefore, I would
not oppose Mr. Kubeczka's original request for a lattice fence, although
most lattice usage has traditionally been for porches and foundation
veneers rather than fences.
As I see it, Mr. Kubeczka should have four options: (1) Leave the
property open and fenceless restoring all sight lines and increasing a
feeling of small-town safety, absent any evidence of fencing with
previous structures on the property. (2) Build an iron fence about
three -feet tall compatible and consistent with the new ornamental
ironwork --since the five-plex is neither a bungalow nor craftsman. (3)
Build a wood fence (low, about three -feet tall) either picket or lattice.
Or (4) build a low (c3') fence from the middle of the structure toward
Rock Street and, if the property owners desire a high privacy fence, a
high (c6') fence back from the half -way point of the structure or farther
back toward the alley. A high fence closer to Rock Street than half -way
back from the front to the back walls would violate the principles set
forth in the Design Guidelines Handbook which limits high fences to
rear yards like mine.
Thank you for this opportunity to react to Mr. Kubeczka's notice.
Respectfully yours,
Richard C. Butler, Jr.
r.
�Ri4, LITTLE ROCK
€e�a<'IUSTORIC
�.�'��'�'' DISTRICT
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Date: 4) -. Aj--o�
1. Date of Public Hearing:
2. Address of Property:
day of
pG7og ex
2000 at S' 00 P.M.
RZo RDCK s-
r
3. Legal Description of Property. �'� 6 Lv6K LK ner 6 imit e p ,,' i7
4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): - Ie1f�Fc�i=
Sys �L�� pt��ifu 2o?1, �) �21� Z
5. Owner's Agent:
6. Project Description (additional pages may be added): fFW% 7474C--
Fh[e&7 7� r✓ c r.W ?ifs r"eIL -IJ6 r2oP� u s
fE,.k /Zea -; 4ii- Ir- A-uoa&2;;6
7. Estimated Cost of Improvements:
8. Category of Work:
9. Notification Requirements: L" Yes- (p
Z/.
10. Signature of Owner or Agent:
II
III IV (Staff use)
150 feet) No
Little Rock Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff):
— Denied _ Deferred _ Approved _ Approved with Conditions
Staff Signature:
NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify
Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property
from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or
staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent.
Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Housing and Community Development
500 W. Markham Street, #120W ♦ Little Rock, AR 72201 ♦ Phone: 501-244-5420 ♦ Fax: 501-399-3461
APR 19 100 08:53AM
P.1
GLENN KUBECZKA
7907 Sayles Road
Jacksonville, AR 72076
So(- %9— 5-64 i—
I"([. Iq,2.ovo
Ll7YcFRoGk WSTAVC. bistiefc7 COMM(SSI&l
QtFPr. VP i-4WSla& A*4 AlEllv"oQ4woZi FW&40tS
5ov W, AMH2KUAM SOOzF I Zo W
-bm COA4Ml ss i oNt25'
S Apt RfR?vr5TNL KovQ hPPAvaAL -W AuJW j#IA"vEMrr+/s -W .4
woomw Lc ci Tetb wi -roF M/1c,yeY+► A 4N SIMIC. DLS'bWQ.
FLVmStr i=iA)b ENc LIPSOO AN AI9A ,c-&7tON p%t A uLdraTlFiC+471cr br-
*WIQWO-elA-MAN&1S"I T,Na 064WOVeS M> a .•tee s/wvR(C SC*eww
YOB e-VN S lD MAt-T%0 rJ AS P,*A7 OP if� UM p MYs FAR
LU5 O"oseTy.
TkaevK mV.
1^--+l1CWSVRF5 ; 1. Cz�l�Gt'[� Be`hpPRoPRI35
2. ''CWp DeZowwcs
3. A�4^rne�Gsjw«� �r-NEsee�ule+
4. b71tr aP NO"e- /4W-42W4 "+ llf" MA IA. ON �/t�loa
j, CUMUS 4-4kb-,A lts HiWa lCKEtL jt,i_378-o77v
r Z N cero to w de me, AR. 7 t201,
2e "WbI 4-SATTOMM" AAINetNIK6 yam(-tsj-33Ss'
irS Re6W weoa p[, bR, Ave, 72!ao?
L.R. moveeNwe cow avenoJ co.
3L3C7 evr-VvQ#WGF W. 4%Z,Af.7poO—.
APR 19 '00 06:54AM
, k'LITTt E ROCK
- r,►� r i� V J. ORIC
�:�!►�r�YDISTRICT
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Appliniiion Date: _PR11L 1%z0oo
I. Date of Public Hearing: day of -MAW _1 2000 at -!r'fl0 P.M.
2. Address o£Property: 920 D 7. 14 r'ti1F► ,0 AK. z 7 o L
3. Legal Description of Property: Lv7 LVCfC +C! l T o
4. Property Owner (Name. Address, Phone, Fax): BE
QD7 c-A-YLi4.5 D c�.vv+�eR, 72a
S. Owner's Agent:
P.2
b. Project Description (additional pages may be added). tI fWT Ex'rtWfDPa lnJS 4iL cog4rrtF
500T7tt5 0)J fOA9 E
V4% DW5.UV INSTD[t
Zre1W
7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: Q #60t? (P % 2 4.1, SDR #� � q 0,4po
8. Category of Work: I � II ly:1► III IV (Staffuse)
9. Notification Requirements: -Z Y properties wv#l1b 150 feet) No
10. Signature of Owner or Agent: 11:;� -
tam»#*#!r»**#�»*i***»*���**�»�■****a+e*s*��r�a�#�eas�s*+�*it»*t+t*fss***�s�se*#sswm
Little Rock Historie District Commission Action (to be etlrliilpleted by staff):
I
j�/�}J _ Denied _ Deferred Approved Approved with Conditions
i 11—r� efi �r �.r--.ram- r.. . t N . r - e. n t— .•- t" l_ r'L M 2l �L �
L�
Staff Signature
NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the dopmved COA, applicant s a tify+
Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the ComntitWon does not excuse applicant or property
from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies oftb city unless stated by the Commission or
staff_ Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rim with the applicant, owner or agent.
Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of liilmrsing and Neighborhood Programs
500 W. Markham Street, #I20W 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 ♦ Phu..: 501-244-5420 ♦ Fax: 501-399-3461
°; APR 19 ' 00 06: 55AM
P.3
NV�-tM%ALS w l7kt S" Fho tF,
'~ Zo Ro C i- bT L e � AK. 72.2,471
P� wt l3LWiD1Q OF Eu1t�u11G
10b 1 ACRIL1C fYra7 Wrog
�K. Rtbj 8fm aN
Z.
bEcva 7r%%0E Wemo1Q sc�utrl4cs
MID-4 ►4w-04- —DwOoil 1F CO�bLYrt(��
J� �bw�lCoM 7 l�t�u
IZ'�w
3
0RNA#%V%r 44 =?-vo0 -- Two; 4v Pr
ool"P-ft ROW-4 I z" W4AF ( CAW vMCR
R. vP j f r. f ewr 6or u&
0 % 1 1'DM .f AeXAS.& A&oi&&w41 12 reeTyK
Rcu15 9 "w x v FT_ t- CSN ter► p�A,e , Cp&*W
A�CI6 {U E�w,2
4k 4 bvRo6141 zaot1 Fivpfec— -- itlrPQe� �•r
I-W EST. L -4 3L"14 JKAvSs FO&-rr AM" To
S. AMeJfSSVOK AOrAS RMI-VW04
CO&CAk" rrPwolve
os- "4MdSG,PIN4 — RMIo%v- LAP-6F aAw&�
F3vz"t3 AAwr <o ProArr OG cu taz w4 , *Lwy
SwwLLeK SS+lW4$ AL944 fW r* of rjv,&aa 6
kY C**cE OP r►K+► A-bA SHAftl
4 PLowra .*T EWA CW CTAL'7e1G L14**e O#V
1A.r Ft-41 `f,* ft .
Ldoloo
K)Oe-lC Sct4kFOO LP
-M S E:&tR1 vPow!
A-PPPov,*L.
'I6 G LZI Al OVA)
AzoTter *
�b 13 E61n) LJ00-)
M040WM .- /PVt
PAOTU-?7r 0 1
wex eoo"'alloJ
OF INT$KiDoQ
Revowriou OG
A-M vatTs_ oQ +s
PVAooi /4 LW W
Tb 14emd vaooi
AvAgov,ft i Aptee
1°tt cgar a 112 4-3
VL
�yL
PA-UR6
4v-
Poo e-O"
M
F&P05eb
3' PtcievT
6? 1 c Ker FE",Xe
RVCIK
q2,2-Rotk-
Lf
iJ
P, 0 c� ST.
Sore-
S<A LE
Pgvmst� TW-E FA07-T,44L PicVer FWtF (02 f=iLk F-CvT 7;4-1,L, 1FALLOWCt
r w,lWM Fk!iArr
pAw -rc-0 v4 T-tF A--,. r-o L Low 5 e, wp-� s (,,>& oAj Paz P fv--ry LIA,2:;' F o F-
5 0 1 L-b wJ6 —f o A- I- L tY- - V y 117 � 50tT 1f 5 1 P 19 0 iKi Pre 0,01 -; V- T y z / "'F
R-40M FWD-/7 OF- To " Of= &WW
kFF.- DES16.0 K�(G4) Cvt6Fz+� ROK mA-�--rTwie t4ts7o2re- t)(aT
A-PoU L 13 (AtL,� 11 011) I2 C-
4! 1 w OF P tcvrT - 31, S;P,+CF
jziktr-V*
C, 0 -Ak IC-
QZ H (?, IT 71
If ,
�
`