HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1998-020 Application For A Certifiate Of Appropriateness 08/15/1998, fi If -LIT TL r� 20CK
;';-gHISTORIC
It DISTRICT
<<li�
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application Date: 19 - 1 1 - 91
1. Date of Public Hearing: 3 day of }& '660-4— 1998 at -5'-P.M.
2. Address of Property:
6) 6 6 I<— p
0
0
3. Legal Description of Property: L x5-sANAZ 4 ESN 6T- L L-tS3 2Lt, 1�
Je
4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax):
5. Owner's Representative:
6. Project Description (additional pages may be added):
7. Estimated Cost of Improvements:
8. Category of Work: I II '� III IV
9. Notification Requirements: '� Yes(pro per�tfe s,,WhinA50 feet)
10. Signature of Owner or Representative:
No
Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff):
en ed Deferred — Approved _ Approved with Cond" ions
5,Lz
Staff Signature:
NOTE: Approval by the itt a Historic District Commission does not excuse the applicant, owner or
representative from compliance with any other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the City of Little Rock
unless expressly stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies
rests with the applicant, owner or representative. 1
Little Rock Historic District Commission + Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs
615 W. Markham Street, Suite 100 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + Phone: 501-2. 4-5420 + Fax: 501-399-3461
PROPOSAL FOR WORK NEEDING TO BE DONE ON PROPERTY AT 1000 ROCK STREET
THE ROOF ON THE REAR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUILDING IS COMPLETELY GONE FROM
YEARS OF NEGLECT. TWO STEEPLY PITCHED ROOFS COME TOGETHER AND FORIM A
TORRENT OF WATER WHEN IT RAINS THAT HITS THE SLIGHTLY PITCHED ROOF OVER THE
REAR SECTION. THE ORIGINAL ROOF WAS METAL AND IS GONE. I HAVE PUT A ROOF OF
HEAVY PALE GRAY METAL IN ITS PLACE. THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE ON THIS
SECTION.
THE BACK WALL SUPPORTING THE ROOF ON THE REAR IS ROTTEN AND HAS TO COME
DOWN. ABOUT ALL THAT IS HOLDING THE WALL UP IS THE PERMASTONE ON THE
EXTERIOR WHICH WILL HAVE TO COME OFF IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE WALL. I
PROPOSE TO USE BOARD AND BATTEN ON THIS SECTION OF WALL, WHICH IS IN KEEPING
WITH THE PERIOD WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE
SUPPORTING WALL IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE WOODEN PORTION OF A
SMALL PORCH WHICH THE WALL ABUTS. I WILL PUT A ROOF BACK OVER THE SMALL
PORCH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ORIGINAL PORCH WAS SCREENED IN AND MOST
LIKELY THE REPLACEMENT WILL BE AS WELL.
THERE IS A DORMER SITTING WHERE THE TWO ROOFS COME TOGETHER THAT IS
COMPLETELY CUT OFF FROM THE ATTIC PROPER AND SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE. THE
DORMER IS ROTTEN AND LEAKS WHEN THERE IS RAIN. IF IT HAD ANY FUNCTION, I
WOULD ENTERTAIN POSSIBLE REPAIR, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. REMOVAL OF THE
DORMER WOULD IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE AND REMOVE THE CAUSE OF A LOT OF
DAMAGE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REPLACE THE ALUMINUM "PICTURE WINDOW" ON THE EAST SIDE
OF THE BUILDING WITH TWO FLOOR TO CEILING WINDOWS SUCH AS WERE IN THE
ORIGINAL HOUSE. THIS WILL REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE EXTRA EXTERIOR DOOR THAT
OPENS ON THE PORCH. AT PRESENT THERE ARE TWO FRONT DOORS.
THERE IS A VERY LARGE METAL WINDOW ON -THE NORTH WALL IN THE DINING ROOM
THAT I PROPOSE TO REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH TWO OR THREE WINDOWS LIKE THE
OTHER WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BRING THE FRONT PORCH BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STATE IF
POSSIBLE. A RAILING AROUND THE PORCH, PERHAPS A WOODEN FLOOR RATHER THAN
THE CONCRETE, AND MORE APPROPRIATE HAND RAILS FOR THE STEPS WOULD HELP.
IF IT IS FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE AT SOME FUTURE DATE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE
PERMASTONE, SINCE I AM SURE THAT IT WAS NOT IN USE IN THE 1870'S.
IN GENERAL IF IT IS POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO RETURN THE HOUSE TO
THE ORIGINAL APPEARANCE
THERE IS ALSO A REALLY BAD OUTBUILDING IN THE REAR WHICH HAS ONLY THREE
WALLS THAT NEEDS TO COME DOWN. ONCE AGAIN, IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO
REPLACE IT AT SOME FUTURE DATE WITH ONE THAT IS FUNCTIONAL AND IN KEEPING
WITH THE GENERAL STYLE OF THE HOUSE.
71K.r,ay v1 L-IuIc ncx;1%
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
3 SEPTEMBER 1998
LRHDC MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners Present:
John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice Chair
Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller
Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Bruce Moore Anthony Black
Guests: Rick Purifoy, Code Enforcement
Nine residents of the historic district'
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to
order. Roll call was taken and as all commissioners were present, there was a quorum.
Prior to the agenda business, Mayor Dailey asked to address the LRHDC. He wanted
specifically to comment on the Second Baptist Church's Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) application, which is the construction of a 35-space parking lot in the 600 block
of Cumberland and Rock streets. The Mayor stated that he is interested in the
redevelopment of the city's central business district and its downtown neighborhoods.
In addressing redevelopment initiatives, the Mayor said that there needs to be a
balance that attempts to accommodate downtown partners with the issues of
neighborhood concern. He stated that instead of denying the application, he hoped
that the LRHDC will work to accommodate the parking lot application and make it a
palpable for the historic district. There is a way to bring the two sides together and to
satisfy the request so that it fits the needs of a growing downtown church and the
neighborhood. There may be other approaches to a parking lot (i.e., subterranean with
playground on top) in an historic district, but the issue is keeping these institutions
downtown so they don't move west, as many have done, He thanked the LRHDC for
the opportunity to address them at the public hearing.
The minutes from the previous meeting were amended and approved.
The first COA application for consideration was:
Applicant: Betty Deislinger
Address: 1000 Rock Street
Request: Rehabilitate structure's exterior and interior
Prior to the presentation, Charles Marratt recused himself from the discussion of the
application as his company handled the house. The applicant presented the plans to
rehabilitate the 1876 structure. A listing of the proposed scope of work included several
items: roof repair; wooden siding on the rear; dormer repair in the rear; replacement of
aluminum windows on the north and east elevations with more appropriate windows of
Little Rock Historic District Commission
3 September 1998 Minutes. Page 2
the period (and as copying Becky Witsell's studio at 1011 Scott,) and on the east, the
replacement of the additional door with an appropriate window; rehabilitation of the front
porch (railing, columns, flooring, steps, etc); removal of-permastone siding; and
installation of storm windows for energy and security purposes. The rehab plans were
detailed, and while there is no time table for the work, it is being prioritized.
Greer asked about the standing seamed metal roof that was applied recently on the
structure's west elevation; the applicant stated that it replaced an old and leaking metal
roof, and the replacement is of good quality. The western -most addition on the rear is
rotten, is not original to the house and plans are to remove it. Discussion focused on
the west dormer, which in poor condition and an outbuilding along the alley, which is
slated for removal. Storm windows were discussed as to the type; there has been no
decision as to the selection, type, color, etc. except what is recommended by the -
design guidelines. Greer stated that instead of anodized aluminum storm windows, it
should be baked enamel aluminum windows.
Staff recommendations were read into the record. The applicant was asked if the
structure was single-family — two meters were installed to accommodate a small
apartment in the southwest section of the structure with entry gained from the rear.
A motion was made that the application be approved (according to the staff
recommendations) with conditions and the storm window changes. Greer stated
that the drawing for the windows on the east elevation did not have sufficient detail for
approval and that a reference be made to the Bragg cottage on Scott Street for the
approval and duplication of the windows. He also expressed concern with the back
porch, due to its high visibility on a corner, and recommended that staff review the
plans for the rear addition improvements. A vote was taken and the application was
unanimously approved with conditions.
10--
Marratt rejoined the LRHDC meeting after the vote. The second application was:
Applicant: Bob Kennedy
Address: 514 East 9th Street
Request: Rehabilitate multiple -family structure's exterior and interior
The applicant presented the proposed work. A listing of the proposed work included
the following: roof repair; replace rotten front porch decking; remove rotten fascia and
soffit; remove siding on rear additions; repair windows, replace floor joists; install
missing railing; install new water lines; remove southeast chimney and rear storage
outbuilding. He presented the items individually and in more detail, but stated that he
had decided to take off the outbuilding's demolition from the listing and to retain the
southeast chimney.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
29 November 1999 Minutes, Page 2
The steel siding will be removed and any pre-existing wooden siding will be repaired or replaced
with wooden, to match the existing profile. There are about five different kinds of windows; he
reviewed their profile and sashes, etc. Wooden windows will be one -over -one sashes. The fascia
and soffit will be. replaced with like -kind materials and construction; the box gutters will be
repaired. No chimney repairs are planned.
Greer asked that the staff recommendations be read into the record; also, he asked that the
following items be included on the conditions: OO on fascia and soffit, like material replacement
will be wood; a0 deck and railing will 1" balusters, square with 4" x 4" posts, 6" on center to
meet code. Os roof will be architectural shingles; and &driveway will be cement and rebar for
entry way curb. Staff recommendations are:
♦ should be project scope change in any fashion in terms of material, massing, scale,
profile and size, staff will be notified and appropriate actions taken;
♦ the project must meet all city codes and regulations, including rental inspection,
parking, etc. and appropriate approvals must be obtained prior to occupancy;
♦ the curb cut and driveway must meet city code regulations (including landscaping);
♦ the driveway shall be one way only with a sign (meeting regulations) stating such;
♦ the right-of-way on the south side of 9th Street shall be clear of visual distractions such
as garbage canisters and parked cars.
Gordon made a motion that, contingent on previous conditions and staff recommendations,
the project request for 415 East 9th be approved; it passed unanimously.
The next agenda item, the demolition of 1422 Rock, was deferred as no one was available to
present the request to the LRHDC. Under Old business, the non -compliant COA at 1000 Rock,
approved in 1998, was discussed. Staff presented the application and what was approved. Part
of the COA request was to install new windows on the front (east) elevation, on the porch, and
replace the inappropriate aluminum windows. The approved windows were to be wooden, a
floor -to -ceiling type; they would emulate the Bragg cottage on Scott in terms of size and
proportion, as both structures are about the approximate age and architectural style.
The owner's representative, Betty Deislinger, confirmed that the two windows, while emulating
the others in width and height, are vinyl windows. NOTE: Vinyl is an inappropriate -material
and they have snap -on mullions, which are not recommended in the design guidelines. The
substituted windows were not approved by either staff or the LRHDC prior to their installation.
Deislinger stated that the vinyl windows were installed as code did not allow windows to extend
to the floor and the wooden ones were too expensive. She stated that it did not occur to her to
seek LRHDC or staff approval prior to their installation.
There was discussion on enforcement, procedures, design guidelines and interpretation of the
exterior appearances of structures. as viewed from the street. With the rehabilitation of older
houses, attention to details, such as windows. is a significant architectural aspect. If one ovmer is
allowed to install vinyl windows, then the next owner will be able to do so. It was recommended
Little Rock Historic District Commission
29 November 1999 Minutes, Pale 3
that action on this non -compliant COA be deferred until the next meeting, when the windows can `
be reviewed in person and with the applicant. A decision as to the enforcement, etc. will be
made after the windows have been reviewed and discussed.
The next non -conforming COA was 1001 Cumberland, approved in 1997. Staff presented a
brief summary of the application request. Property owner, Wali Caradine, presented the COA
request, which was the construction of a two -storied garage in the rear yard. The project had the
approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment; subsequent exterior changes were made by this
board. Caradine reviewed the structure and the difference in its siding; instead of the approved
wooden board and batten, wooden shiplap was installed -as the finishing material. There is a
difference in construction and its visual impact. Photos depicting the project were passed
around; they showed the garage in connection with the home, adjacent structures and the street.
The materials were difficult to obtain and expensive, and the construction deadlines made it
difficult to obtain the board and batten. Caradine stated that he knew to notify the LRHDC of
changes; he intended to come before them at a later date with other issues, such as the fence, etc.
There was discussion regarding process, material change and whether it warranted notification of
adjacent owners. While the change only was in the construction method, the finishing material
of wood; however, for Greer, the construction method is a significant change. It was agreed that
Caradine would notify property owners within 150' of the change and provide staff with proof of
notification. The regular property notice form would not be used, as it must state why he is
giving notification of the change and why he was before the LRHDC; staff will provide
assistance in preparing the document.
Also, on the agenda was 920 Scott, which is non -compliant due to the asphalting of the
driveway. As the owner could not attend due to a funeral, she will try to attend the next meeting.
The last agenda item under non -compliant COAs was 514 East 9th, installation of a chain link
fence in a rear yard. A permit was obtained for the fence, but LRHDC staff did not approve the
permit, as is the usual process. Property owner, Jay Core, stated that in the rear yard of his
property at 512 E. 9th, a 26' wooden fence and gate were installed; as part of the permit, a 35'
chain link fence was installed to the east and connected with an existing chain link fence. As
determined by legal, the installed chain link can be seen from 9th Street. Also, the fence does
not meet the criteria of the design guidelines, which state that chain link may be "located in rear
yards where not readily visible from the street if dark green or black and screened with hedge,
ivy or other creeping cover." Gordon proposed that the case be deferred until each commissioner
has the opportunity to view the chain link and determine its visual impact from the street.
Other items on the agenda were: the LRHDC meeting schedule for the upcoming year 2000 was
adopted unanimously; and an orientation meeting date was tentatively set for Thursday, 16
December. As there was no other business, the LRHDC meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
6 January 2000 Minutes, Page 2
The. second COA application for consideration was:
Applicant: Art Place, LLC
Address: 916 - 924 Commerce Street
Request: New fence, signage, landscaping and improved parking
Tim Heiple presented the application and gave an overview of the project request; additional
plans on the larger scale were available for the discussion and detailing. The organization
purchased the land to the west (i.e., the northeast corner. of 1 Oth and Rock streets) and are
expanding the parking to the west. A request to abandon the alley from 1 Oth north to the middle
of the block was approved by the city's Board of Directors; the abandonment allows for the
expanded parking due west of the apartments and incorporates the abandoned alley. The
required landscaping and parking have been approved by the city. Fred Grey, as partner, also
presented additional information regarding parking, fencing, etc. The fencing on the apartment's
west side will be wood, and there will be iron fencing along the front yard, on the north, east and
south sides. The extant alley curb cut (on north side of 1 Oth) will be widened to serve as the
driveway for the improved parking area. There was details about the proposed sign on the front,
or east, elevation; it will have either a fountain or planter in the center; the lettering duplicates
that which is on the building. Staff recommendations were read. Gordon made a motion to
approve the request as submitted; it was approved unanimously.
The last COA for consideration was:
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Address: 1422 Rock
Request: Demolition of structure
Barbara Hyatt, City of Little Rock Code Enforcement Supervisor of Operations, presented an
update on the structure and its inclusion on the city's unsafe structures list. The property owner
is before the environmental court due to the structure's need to be boarded and secured; the
environmental court judge is waiting for the LRHDC's decision before it is presented to his
court. Copies of the required structural condition were passed around; staff provided an update
of the structure's past requests, deferrals and requested information: costs for rehab, structural
condition and assessment and the extent of deterioration; the structure would have to be rebuilt
completely. The owner made it known to staff that he will make no further financial investments
into the structure. Hyatt explained the city process for demolition of structures damaged by last
year's tornado. There was discussion about the application request for a new roof and its
condition prior to the tornado. There was a motion by Weems to approve the request for the
demolition of 1422 Rock; the vote unanimously approved its demolition.
Under Old Business, the previously approved, though non -compliant, COA at 1000 Rock, was
discussed. Note: prior to the meeting, the LRHDC met on site to inspect the structure and its
non -compliant windows; the owner's representative was notifced prior to the visit but could Y
not be present. Part of the COA request was to install new windows on the front porch's east
elevation and replace the inappropriate aluminum windows with wooden, floor -to -ceiling type,
emulating those at the Brai7g cottage on Scott Street in terms of size and proportion. While it
was agreed that the floor -to -ceiling windows do not meet code, Greer stated that in his opinion,
Little Rock Historic District Commission
6 January 2000 Minutes, Page 3
aesthetically, the size of the front porch windows is proportional to the other existing windows in
terms of height and width. The window details are maintained by duplicating the casing, trim
and sill on the front two porch windows to match existing; what is quite apparent to Greer is the
mutins or the vertical dividing strips. Vinyl windows have the snap -on mutins and do not have
the different panes of glass; there is one glass pane with clip in grid. As the mutins are not true,
there is no depth perception and no dimension to the windows. This detail is quite apparent on
the front facade of the structure. While it is not detrimental to the overall design, the lack of
detailing is obvious. Storm windows were installed over the vinyl ones and are noticeably darker
than the other storm windows.
The guidelines state that the snap -on grid/panes are not recommended. If the vinyl windows are
allowed, it would establish a precedence. On page 59, the guidelines state that: windows should
be preserved in their original location, size and design and with their original materials and
numbers of panes; if windows are replaced, the replacement should be in -kind to match the
originals in material and design; should not have snap -on or flush mutins; and should not have
security bars where visible from the street. There was discussion on enforcement, procedures,
design guidelines and interpretation of the exterior appearances of structures, as viewed from the
street. With the rehabilitation of older houses, attention to details, such as windows, is a
significant architectural aspect.
Discussion also focused on a related window feature of the structure and that is the existing
security bars on the windows; also discussed was the air-conditioning unit located on the north
(street) side of the house. The guidelines state that security windows "should not be located on
primary facades and on windows visible from the street." Also, the guidelines state that
mechanical equipment "should be located on the rear facade; be located where not readily visible
from the street; and if visible, should be screened with shrubbery or fencing." Gordon made a
motion that within six months, the applicant must:
♦ replace the front porch vinyl windows with windows of materials as listed
on the original COA (wood sash); the windows must retain the existing
dimensions in terms of shape, size and proportion
♦ screen or fence the air-conditioning unit on the north side; it must be
approved administratively prior to installation
♦ remove the security bars on the windows '
It was approved unanimously. i
The next item for discussion was the siding construction technique on the garage at 1001
Cumberland. Staff stated that, as requested, the required letters were mailed to property owners
within 150 feet; there were no objections to the construction technique either to the staff or to the
property owner. Gordon made a motion that since the owner completed the required
notification and satisfied the LRHDC (notices were mailed December 14), that the
alteration to the original COA should be accepted. It was approved unanimously.
City of Little Rock
Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs
Administration
615 West ?zrkJ asr, Suite 100, Little Rock. Arkansas 72201
Phone 501-371-4745, Fax 501-399-3461
23 November 1999
Betty Deislinger
1000 Rock Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
Dear Betty,
On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LR.HDC),1 am writing to notify you
that the windows. on the front elevation of your structure do not comply with what was approved
by the LRHDC at their June 1998 meeting. According to the drawings you submitted and the
approved COA, the windows were to emulate those of the Bragg Cottage at 1003 Scott, in terms
of mullions, sills, surrounds and profile.
The LRHDC approved the plans according to the drawings that are presented and in good faith
that the proposed work will be executed accordingly. As part of the application process, the
Commission or its staff must be notified of any alterations from the approved design
Consequently, you are requested to appear before the LRHDC at its next scheduled meeting
Monday, 29 November at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall's Sister Cities Conference Room to present
an update on the work. Should you have questions, please contact me at 244-5420.
Respectfully,
V. Anne Guthrie
Historic Preservation Administrator
xc: Little Rock Historic District Commission
Anthony Black
t
1 L.0 Co�
City of Little Rock CS
Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs
Administration
615 West Markham. Suite 100, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Phone 301-371-4748, Fax 541-399-vAK 26 January 2000
Betty Deislinger
1000 Rock Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
Dear Ms. Deislinger:
On jehalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC), I am writing to notify you
that after the inspection of your front porch windows, the Commission discussed in great detail
the appropriateness and compliance of the windows vd-th the historic district's design guidelines
It was decided at the 6 January meeting, that within six months, you must:
♦ replace the front porch vinyl windows with materials as listed on your
original COA (wood sash); the windows must match the dimensions, shape
and size of the existing original windows
♦ screen or fence the a/c unit located on the north (to be administratively
approved prior to installation)
♦ remove the security bars
Attention to details, such as windows, is a significant architectural feature of a historic structure,
and not being in compliance does indeed detract from the overall physical detailing. Your
compliance with the above -listed items within the time period will be noted; the six months
commences upon your receipt of this letter. If these items are not changed within the specif,ed
time, and in accordance with the city ordinance and guidelines, further actions will be taken (the
judicial system has the authority to level a daily fine until the items are brought into compliance).
Also, the heat and air unit situated on the north side and the retention of the security bars were
discussed. While your COA application did not include the installation of mechanical units, the
guidelines state that mechanical equipment "should be located on the rear facade; be located
where not readily visible from the street; if visible, should be screened with shrubbery or
fencing." Security bars are removed normally with the installation of storm windows; the design
guidelines state that security bars "should not be located on primary facades; and should not be
located on windows visible from the street.
If there are questions about these issues, you are encouraged to call me at 244-5420: - The
LRHDC appreciates your hard work and investment in the historic district, but its members are
committed in upholding the ordinance and guidelines to ensure that the district's architectural
integrity is maintained.
Respectfully,
V. Anne Guthrie. Historic Preservation Administrator
xc: Little Rock Historic District Commission
Anthony Black
. OFFICE OF THE CITY AT I'17PUNEY
500 W--t.MaAh.m, Sf,e. 310
LiE£le Rook, Ark,32zss 72201
Anilon7 W. Black
Depat7 Cii7 AUorne7
April 13, 2000
Betty Deislinger
1000 Rock Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
D,-zr Ms. Deislinger:
Telephone (501) 371-452
Telecopier (S01) 571-4075
On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission C'Commission"), and as a follow-
up to the enclosed letter sent to you by Anne Guthrie -on January 26, 2000, I would like to remind
you that the work performed at your residence is not in compliance with the Certificate of
Appropriateness C'COA') that was approved by the Commission pursuant to your application and
presentation.
As a result of its review, the Commission has determined that the following items must be
performed prior to July 1, 2000:
1. Replacement of the front porch vinyl windows with materials listed on your original
COA; the windows must snatch the dimensions, shape and size of the e-msting original windows;
2. Screening or fencing the air conditioning unit located on the North elevation; prior to
installation of the screen or fence, this item shall be administratively approved by Ms. Guthrie.
3. Removal of security bars.
Although the Commission anticipates your compliance with its requests, which compliance
will resolve these outstanding issues pertaining to the approved COA, please be advised that non-
compliance by the specified time will necessitate further action by the Commission.
If you have any questions, or if I may be of assistance, do not hesitate to tail.
Sincerely,
Thomas K Carpenter
City Ado, Bey
;z
�.rtnoa, W. Black
►Deoety CirY s�m=ey
TNIC : AW-B: dab
Eaciosu. e
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORINEY
500 west Markham, cute. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Anthony W. Black
Deputy City Attorney
June 22, 2000
Ms. Betty Deislinger
1000 Rock Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
Dear Ms. Deislinger:
Telephone (501) 371-4527
Telecopier (501) 371-4575
On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission ("LRBDC"), the purpose of this
letter is to serve as a reminder that the six-month period, in which your home must comply with the
approved provisions of your Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA"), expires on July 1, 2000.
Previous notices have been sent to you identifying the non -conforming aspects of the work
that has been performed at your home. Copies of these letters are attached for your review.
As your COA application did not include the installation of the vinyl window, the installation
of the mechanical units, and security bars remaining on windows, your compliance with the previous
requests made by the LRHDC is mandatory. Ifthese matters are not voluntarily addressed within the
specified time, the LRHDC will pursue the remedies provided by city ordinance.
Although the LRHDC has not received any communication from you concerning its request
for you to comply with the approved provisions of the COA, do not hesitate to contact Anne Guthrie
at 244-5420 if you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
V. Anne Guthrie
Historic Preservation Administrator
VAG: AWB : dab
By certified mail,
return receipt requested -
Receipt No. Z 094 509 891
Anthony W.�lack
Deputy City Attorney
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
THIRD DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS/ PLAINTIFF
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
l+A
BETTY DEISLINGER
1000 Rock Street _3 %5- q 9 a 7
Little Rock, AR 72202
DEFENDANT
DOB: 09/21/30 Sex/Race: W/F ADL#: 900-84-3121
CRIMINAL AFFIDAVIT
FACTS: On September 3, 1998, Betty Deislinger appeared before the Little Rock Historic
District Commission ("LRHDC") for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA') for
the rehabilitation of a single family home. The LRHDC approved the application request with
conditions. A building permit was issued the same month. In November 1999, Ms. Deislinger
was notified in writing that the front porch windows did not comply with the approved COA.
She was asked to appear before the LRHDC at its November 29th meeting in order to address the
completed work and the issue of non-compliance.
Ms. Deislinger was then notified in writing on January 26, 2000 that she had six months in which
to comply with the ordinance and design guidelines, to replace the vinyl window, to screen the
air conditioning unit on the north side and to remove the security bars. Ms. Deislinger was
subsequently notified twice in writing regarding the time period in which to comply with the
guidelines; however, there was no written response from Ms. Deislinger regarding the letters.
On July 20, 2000, Ms. Deislinger mailed letters to each commissioner stating that she would
comply with only one of the LRHDC's requests; the letter was not mailed to staff. There has
been no communication with Ms. Deislinger since July 20, 2000.
Because of this, I believe the defendant has committed the offense (s) of: violating Little
Rock Ark., Rev. Code § 23-132. The LRHDC did not approve the installation of the vinyl
window or the air conditioning unit on the north side and security bars on windows visible from
the street should be removed.
I swear this information is true and correct to the best of my information and belief.
Historic Preservation Administrator's Name:
V. Anne Guthrie
500 W. Markham Street, #120W
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 5 01-244-5420
Swornto before me on this /7:?�day of t , 2000.
Witness:
Little Rock Enviro*ental Clerk
zr
2
r
In the Municipal Court.in Little Rock. Arkansas WARRANT#: 473593
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
WkRRANT OF ARREST
USHORIZED BY JUDGE DUPLICATE Copy
CIVILIAN WARRANT BOND:
STATE OF ARKANSAS MISDEMEANOR PAY OFF: 0.00
County of Pulaski. ss
City of Little Rock.
To An T P� ��o REEArS NN°�ca UNDS FOR BELIE BELIEVING TTHGrE �; DEISLINGER
WHITE FEMALE, DOB 09/21/1930, 5 FEET 6 INCHES, 130 LBS, ADL 80694971
RES 1501 N UNIVERSITY LR AR , HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF
23-132 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, GENERA
IN THE COUNTY OF PULASKI, STATE OF ARKANSAS, YOU ARE COMMANDEILFORTHWITH TO ARREST THE SAID DEFENDANT
AND BRING HIM BEFORE THE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION THEREOF, TO ANSWER SAID INFORMATION
AND TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
YOU ARE COMMANDED BY SAID JUDGE TO SUMMONS AS WITNESSES FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
V.ANNE GUTFIRIE ,HISTORIC, HOME: WORK:244-5420
***------- ADDITIONAL SUSPECT HISTORY TO FOLLOW -------***
BOND PC LIC# PKI263 AR
Witness my hand and seal of said Cour,, this t;av Of
..:erK En. _ ,rental C .. r. Mumc:oat cur 0! -,,tie R;CK ArK
IRL
City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles Toland, Permits Administrator
FROM: V. Anne Guthrie, Historic Preservation Administrator
DATE: 9 November 1999
SUBJECT: Permit for 1000 Rock Street
This memo serves as administrative approval from the Little Rock Historic District
Commission allowing the property owner of 1000 Rock Street permission to obtain an extension
for a building permit. The COA, as required due to its location within the MacArthur Park
Historic District, was issued to the property owner in 1998 for rehabilitating the structure's
exterior (windows, roof, etc.); the conditions of the COA approval are attached. It is my
understanding that the building permit was issued in 1998, that rehab work has been continuous
and the anticipated completion date for the structure's rehabilitation is next year. With this
understood agreement and the good faith effort of the owner, an extension of a building permit
should be approved. If exterior changes or improvements are made that require additional
approval from the LRHDC (see the Design Review Guidelines: MacArthur Park Historic
District), property owner shall notify staff and appropriate actions taken for a public hearing.
TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:. Cy CARNEY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AND
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 1000 ROCK
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2000
The Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was created by City Ordinance, Article
VI, Secs 23-96--23-133, in 1977. The LRHDC consists of five members with specified
qualifications (architect, resident, property owner, etc.) and is assisted by city staff, Historic
Preservation Administrator; this position was designated in the mid 1990s. The LRHDC reviews
applications for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), as specified by the city ordinance. In
1999, thirty-four (34) applications were reviewed by the LRHDC; in 1998, eighteen (18)
applications and in 1997, ten (10) applications.
The LRHDC has the authority to approved applications for exterior changes; "no building or
structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant
fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished within the historic district.... until
after an application .... has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission,."
The LRHDC's authority was upheld in the court of law. Because there is the LRHDC, the City
has received an estimated $300,000 in federal funds for projects such as architectural surveys of
Central High, Hillcrest and Capitol View, funds for Kramer's stabilization and purchase of
historic structures such as Mosaic Templars and YMCA.
Regarding 1000 Rock: the applicant purchased the property in the summer of 1998; she was
given a copy of the historic district's design guidelines by both the realtor and city preservation
administrator. At the September 1998 meeting, the applicant appeared before the LRHDC for a
COA to rehabilitate the historic structure; there were several items on the project listing, and
among them were window repairs, install storm windows and to "take the front porch back to its
original state .....and return the house to the original appearance." The application was approved
conditionally; with staff recommendations of : 1) that a building permit be obtained and all work
meet city code and regulations; 2) repair rather than replacement be the preferred approach to
particular aspects of the rehabilitation (according to the Secretary of Interior's guidelines); 3) if
new material is used, it will be sympathetic to the structure's architecture, i.e., Bragg Cottage on
Scott for windows; 4) storm windows will be baked aluminum; 5) should the scope of work
change, other than what is submitted, staff and the LRHDC will be notified, consulted and
appropriate actions taken.
In the fall of 1999, city staff received complaints about the work being done on the structure; it
was discovered that the installed windows were not according to what the LRHDC approved.
Also, the structure did not have a permit for the work being done; a previous permit had expired.
A letter was sent to the applicant, requesting her appearance before the LRHDC at their
November meeting. The applicant appeared at the January 2000 LRHDC meeting, along with
three other property owners who had not followed district guidelines. At the January meeting, the
applicant for 1000 Rock was given a six-month period in which to comply with the city
ordinance and the district's design guidelines. Four letters were written to the applicant; the
applicant addressed one letter to the LRHDC in July. Several phone calls were made to the
applicant, asking for resolution and compromise.
In August, the LRHDC voted for staff to initiate an affidavit for the applicant to appear before
the city's environmental court. An unsuccessful attempt was made to serve the warrant on Friday,
September 29; as she was absent, but notified of the attempt, she called the district's code
enforcement officer who instructed her over the phone of the reasons and possible action for her
to take.
At a LRHDC meeting on October 5, the applicant was in attendance in support of another
applicant; the attending city legal representative, asked her identify and if she owned 1000 Rock;
she responded positively. The legal representative left the meeting; subsequently, a warrants
officer appeared and after waiting outside the meeting room, asked if she would step away from
the meeting. She was escorted to the police station a block away and signed the warrant for an
appearance before municipal environmental court.
A packet of information was prepared with a chronology of events related to 1000 Rock; the
attached packet contains the correspondence, application, etc. for the subject property.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Attachments
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
1000 ROCK
COA Application submitted
submitted 15 August 1998 with COA application & listing of rehab work
approved with conditions
Meeting with applicant
prior to 1998 meeting and other occasions
home visit with applicant prior to LRHDC meeting (rainy afternoon, sat in dining
room & had tour of house)
COA before LRHDC
3 September 1998; approved with conditions (abutting owners notified)
asked to appear before LRHDC in November 1999; appeared January 2000
Minutes
3 September 1998
29 November 1999
6 January 2000
Correspondence
to applicant: 23 November 1999 (from A. Guthrie)
to applicant: 26 January 2000 (from A. Guthrie)
to applicant: 13 April 2000 (from A. Black)
to applicant: 22 June 2000 (jointly from A. Black & A. Guthrie)
from applicant to LRHDC: -- July 2000
Criminal Affidavit: 18 August 2000
Conversations
applicant called code enforcement officer Rick Purifoy 28 or 29 September, prior
to October 5 (she was notified that the warrant had been attempted to be served
but she wasn't home; she called Purifoy and he explained the process)
Conversations with applicant
several phone calls & personal occasions prior to 1998 appearance before LRHDC
several phone calls & personal occasions during 1999 and 2000
one phone conversation with applicant summer 2000
Prior to the fall of 1999, substantial work done on applicant's house:
windows
storm windows
roof
ac units
sewer & electrical work
apartment rehab in rear
In the fall of 1999, after two calls of complaints, regarding ac units, etc. I called permits to ask if
1000 Rock had a permit; I was informed that there was an expired permit but not a permit for
ongoing work. At that time while on the phone, permits stated that an inspector was in the area
and would go by and check on work. Inspector radioed in that substantial work was being done
(ca. $30,000). He had a conversation with applicant and stated that a permit was required; a stop
work order was issued at that time. I prepared memo to permits allowing electrical, etc. to
continue. Work commenced a few days later after a permit was filed.
Nonconforming items:
- shed roof in rear installed 1998, no LRHDC or staff approval
- ac units on north & west; no LRHDC approval
- security bars on those with storm windows
- front porch light fixture & fan added
- rear porch added September 2000; no required approval (altered bldg. footprint)
Phone conversation with:
Max Brantley 9 October
Linda Caillouet 10 October
Calls of Complaint:
10-12
663-8610 unidentified
663-0555 Henry Gatlin
unidentified phone Diana Taylor
10-13
unidentified phone, Dora ?? From Boston
unidentified phone, -Pat Lile
663-2711 Byrum Magness
224-2288 Arthur Miller, abuse of power
897-1154 Bobbie Stanton
unidentified phone & caller
Calls of Support:
Robin Loucks
Jim Walsmith, 372-4757
Ann Bryan, 374-5396