Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1998-020 Letter From Offic Of The City Attorney To Mr. Jeffery H. Kearney 10/16/2000OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Mark6m, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Anthony W. Black Deputy City Attors.ey October 16, 2000 Mr. Jeffrey . Kearney 422 Iiiay 425 Post Office Box 8276 PiT"lufE Arkansas 71603 Ike: City of Little Rock v. Deislinger Case No. E00-1275 Citation No. CR99-888 Dear Jeff: Telephone (501) 371-4527 Telecopier (501) 371-4675 Enclosed please find pertinent materials for a matter that is scheduled for plea and arraignment on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. in Environmental Court. 1. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 15, 1998; 2. Excerpt from Historic District Commission ("HDC") Minutes dated September 3, 1998; 3. Excerpt from HDC Minutes dated November 29, 1999; 4. Excerpt from HDC Minutes dated January 6, 2000; 5. Letter from Anne Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated November 23, 1999; 6. Letter from Anne Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated January 26, 2000; 7. Letter from Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated April 13, 2000; 8. Letter from Anne Guthrie and Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated June 22, 2000; and 9. Criminal Affidavit in the Environmental Court of Little Dock, Arkansas, Third Division dated August 18, 2000. I have a trial this afternoon, but will call you upon its conclusion in order to discuss the issues in this case. if you need any additional information during the interim, however, please contact Anne Guthrie, City of Little Rock Historic Preservation Administrator, at -` 120. Mr. Jeff Kearney October 16, 2000 Page -2- Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney t' By: Anthony W. Black Deputy City Attorney TMC:AWB:dab Enclosures By facsimile delivery - 870-536-5547t cc: V. Anne Guthrie OFFICE ICE OF THE CITYATTORNEY j Y 500 Wes£ . arlsham, Ste.310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 An£i,cuy W. Black Deputy Cit7 Aft®rne7 October 9, 2000 Mr. Max�Br�antlArkansa Post ice Box 34C 10 Rock, Arkansas 72203 Re: 1000 Rock Street Dear Max: Y eleiph®-e (501) 371-4527 Telec®pier (501) 371A675 Pursuant to our telephone conversation this afternoon, enclosed please find the following materials that I have been able to locate in my office concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness that was approved upon application by Betty Deislinger: 1. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 15,1998; 2. Excerpt from historic District Commission ("HDC") Minutes dated September 3, 1998; 3. Excerpt from HDC Minutes dated November 29, 1999; 4. Excerpt from HDC Minutes dated January 6, 2000; 5. Letter from Anne Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated November 23, 1999; 6. Letter from Anne Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated January 26, 2000; 7. Letter from Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated April 13, 2000; 8. Letter from Anne Guthrie and Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated June 22, 2000; and 9. Criminal Affidavit in the Environmental Court of Little Rock, Arkansas, Third Division dated August 18, 2000. These materials may not comprise the entire file maintained by Ann Guthrie, historic Preservation Administrator for the City of Little Rock; however, these are the materials that were readily available to me in my office. I trust that this information may be of use to you. If you have any questions, or if I may be of fiirther assistance, do not Hesitate to call. Mr. Max Brantley October 9, 2000 Page -2- Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: Anthony W. Black Deputy City Attorney TMC:AWB:dab Enclosures By facsimile delivery - 375-3623 cc: Anne Guthrie Debra Weldon OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Marlclaasn, .Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 79-201 A-A-.3, W. Biaok Deputy City Attorney October 11, 2000 Ms. Linda Caillouet Arkansas Dem t Gazette 121 East C itol Avenue Little ck, Arkansas 72201 1000 Dock Street Dear Ms. Caillouet: g'eleph-- (501) 371-4527 Telecopier (501) 371-4675 Pursuant to our telephone conversation this afternoon, enclosed please find the following materials that I have been able to locate in my office concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness that was approved upon application by Betty Deislinger: 1. Application for Certificate of A-pDz-upriateness dated August 15, 1998; 2. Excerpt from Historic District Commission ("HDC") lAinutes dated September 3, 1998; 3. Excerpt from IBC Minutes dated November 29, 1999; 4. Excerpt from H3DC Minutes dated January 6, 2000; 5. Letter from Anne Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated November 23, 1999; 6. Letter from Annie Guthrie to Ms. Deislinger dated January 26, 2000; 7. Letter from Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated April 13, 2000; 8. Letter from Anne Guthrie and Anthony W. Black to Ms. Deislinger dated June 22, 2000; and 9. Criminal Affidavit in the Environmental Court of Little Rock, Arkansas, 'Third Division dated August 18, 2000. These materials may not comprise the entire file maintained by Anti Guthrie, Historic Preservation Administrator for the City of Little Rock; however, these are the materials that were readily available to me in my office. I trust that this information may be of use to you. If you have any questions, or if I may be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call. Ms. Linda Caillouet October 11, 2000 Page -2- Sincerely, Thomas A Carpenter City Attorney By: Anthony W. Black Deputy City Attorney TMC:A":dab Enclosures By facsimile delivery - 372-4765 cc: Anne Guthrie Debra Weldon -'!irLITTLit ROC" � HISTORIC :E f� 0rDISTRICT •�r;'rl t�ir APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public Hearing: 3 day of -- 1998 at s P.M. 2. Address of Property: 0 O �' �v C'� e-R6 3. Legal Description of Property: o'F 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): 1 ` i e i r 5. Owner's Representative: Lo <?' S 1' LOL e- (t- 7,5 - 6. Project Description (additional pages maybe added): 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: [ 1 D d d 8. Category of Work: I II 11� III IV 9. Notification Requirements: Yes properties71thin 50 feet) No 10. Signature of Owner or Representative: Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff): — Penned , Deferred — Approved KApproved with CondiQons 'LL 111V Staff Signature: NOTE: Approval by the itt e . - 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. Little Rock Historic District Commission + Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs 615 W. Markham Street, Suite 100 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + Phone: 501-244-5420 + 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 FORM 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. �1sb�, ts�-a, s-*QL,3G. aw�b %wily WO VsuJc nin:n 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 3 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 r unanimously approved with conditions. 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 rotted fascia ana 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; OO 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 T 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 owner 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, Page 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 notified prior to the visit but could 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 Bragg 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. 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. r \L�- Coely City of Little Rock Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs Administration 615 West Markham, Suite 100, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-371-4748, Fax 501-399-3461 23 November 1999 Betty Deislinger 1000 Rock Street Littie Rock, AR 72202 Dear Betty, On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC), I 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 on 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 Wk City of Little Rock Q Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs Administration 615 West Markham, Suite 100, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-371-4748, Fax 501-399-3461 26 January 2000 Betty Deislinger 1000 Rock Street Little Rock. AR 72202 Dear Ms. Deislinger: On )ehalf 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 with 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 specified 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, 1 V. Anne Gu`dhrie, Historic Preservation Administrator xc: Little Rock Historic District Commission Anthony Black OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Y 600 Wevt Marl h..' SJ£e. 310 Little Roch, Arkansaa 72201 An£bon7 W. black DepuL7 City A££oruey April 13, 2000 Betty Deislinger 1000 Rock Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Deislinger: Taleplzane (501) 371-4527 Teleoapier (501) 371-44673 On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission C'Commissioe'), 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 match the dimensions, shape and size of the existing 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 call. Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Atto-mey i W. Black Deputy City Attomey TNIC:Atiti'B:dab Enclto6L:a e OFFICE OF 'TEE 'CITY ATTORNEY 500 Nest Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Anthony W. Black Deputy City Attoraey June 22, 2000 Ms. Betty Deislinger 1000 Rock Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Ms. Deislinger: Telephone (501) 371-4527 Telecepier (501) 371-4675 On behalf of the Little Rock Historic District Commission C LRHDC" ), 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 C'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. If these 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. 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 BETTY DEISLINGER 1000 Rock Street 37,5- 4�9a7 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 ("COX') 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. Ilk Historic Preservation Administrator's Name: V. Anne Guthrie 500 W. Markham Street, #120W Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 501-244-5420 Swor n to before me on this �— day of lbjwl,� I , 2000. Witness: Little Rock Environental Clerk 2 In the Municipal Court in Little Rock. Arkansas WARRANT#: 473593 ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION W.ARR-AN T O F :-RRE S T a ._ __ UTHORIZED BY JUDGE DUPLICATE -- COPY CIVILIAN WARRANT BOND: STATE OF ARKANSAS MISDEMEANOR PAY OFF: 0.00 County of Pulaski. ss City of Little Rock. To -�pL§ ��T T Cc�gner, or Policeman of the State, Greeting: ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT BETTY iU 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 COMMANDED FORTHWITH 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 GUTHRIE ,HISTORIC, HOME: WORK:244-5420 ***------- ADDITIONAL SUSPECT HISTORY TO FOLLOW -------*** HOND PC LIC# PMI263 AR o" Witness my hand and seal of said Court. this � day of Clerk Em.:r nmental C •:s � Municipai Lour, of i-ittle Rock Arx