HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1999-023 Staff Minutes 06/03/1999City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
3 JUNE MEETING
(This meeting is the first of the regularly scheduled meetings)
MINUTES
Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair
Charles Marratt
Commissioner Absent: Howard H. Gordon
Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black
Judy Gardner
Mark Zoeller
Margi Gant
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll
call was taken, and as there was a quorum, minutes from two previous meetings (8 and 15 April)
were approved.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was:
Applicant: Robert Traylor
Address: 1407 Rock Street
Request: Demolition of structure due to tornado damage
The property owner presented the support documentation of photographs; he stated that the
insurance company's estimated cost for rehabilitating the 1,000 square feet structure was
between $45-50,000. The estimates were made after the tornado; however, by not securing the
structure from the weather for over four months (no roof, windows, etc.), the costs are probably
higher. Also as an unsecured structure, it is unsafe. It was listed as destroyed on two of the three
damage assessments; it was added to the list of structures to be condemned by city ordinance.
The subject structure was listed on the architectural survey as contributing (ca. 1880) Queen
Anne with Colonial Revival additions.
Staff recommendation is to approve the request for demolition on condition that the Quapaw
Quarter Association (QQA) be notified of possible salvage material. Staff presented an update of
the city demolition of four approved structures on this block. There was a motion to approve
the request for demolition as presented, and the vote was unanimous.
The second COA application was:
Applicant: John J. Jarrard, agent
Address: 1104 - 1112 Rock Street
Request: Demolition of garage & portions of structure and new construction
of garage & privacy fence on perimeter of two lots
Jarrard, as the owner's agent and architect, presented the application and a site plan of the two
properties. The demolition of the garage and portions of the rear of the structure and new
construction of a garage is for 1104 Rock; the perimeter privacy fence is for the two lots. The
Little Rock Historic District Commission
3 June 1999 Minutes, Page 2
circa 1920s-30s garage is in poor condition and 2/3 of it is gone due to termites. The garage and
rear addition are in poor condition and have been inspected by an architect, contractor and
engineer. The new construction of a two -car garage has wooden siding and requires a variance
for rear yard setback (it has two bays on the west elevation opening onto the alley). The subject
property is in the middle of the block, and the proposed fence in the rear and side yards cannot be
seen from Rock. The fence height is 8' and requires a height variance from the Board of
Adjustment. Proposed roofing material for the new garage was composition shingle, but after
plans were submitted, the owners decided that corrugated metal would be more appropriate.
Staff recommendation was to approve the COA request with two conditions: that the variances
for setbacks and fence height be approved by the ZBA and that should be the project's scope
change, staff will be notified and appropriate action taken. There was a motion to approve the
COA application with the amendment of the garage roofing material (changed to
corrugated metal). The motion was approved unanimously.
Under new and old business, the non-compliance of approved COAs was discussed, specifically
for the properties at 514 East 9th and 902 Cumberland. Staff summarized the recent actions:
that the requested letters for, and reviewed by, the LRHDC went out to the two property owners.
A similar letter was mailed to the QQA, as they did not follow procedures for obtaining a
building permit, either through administrative approval or appearing before the LRHDC.
The two owners of 514 East 9th and 902 Cumberland were asked to either write a letter
explaining their actions (i.e., why they did not follow the COA and installed materials contrary to
what was approved) or appear at the June meeting. Of the two, only the representative of 902
Cumberland (Graves Litho) responded; two letters were written in April and May explaining
why they did not install the approved glass blocks on the north elevation's entry. Only this entry,
which was being enclosed, was to have glass blocks, and the remainder were insulated bronze
windows. Instead of glass blocks for the north entry, they thought the bronze windows looked
better and would be more uniform and consistent. Staff talked with Graves Litho on more than
one occasion and had several phone conversations with their representative regarding the
installment of the windows. The representative made it clear, on more than one occasion, that
the mistake was an honest one, of not knowing that he should have notified the LRHDC of the
changes. He is eager to work with the LRHDC and will attend the July meeting; he could not
attend in June as he had business outside the state.
For 514 East 9th, the property owner called on two occasions and talked with staff. While
having drawings, as requested by the LRHDC at an earlier meeting, the end product is not as
drawn and has not complied with the design, scale, materials, etc. He has an obligation as owner
of a historic structure in a historic district to comply with design guidelines and what was
approved. Two adjacent property owners, Core and Morning were present at the meeting and
were given the opportunity to address their concerns about 514 E. 9th. Core stated that his
property had problems with the discarded roofing materials from the subject property on his roof;
the removal of gutters from the subject property had caused drainage problems (the sideyard
setbacks are close); and the issue of parking in the rear of the buildings, or in the middle of the