No preview available
 /
     
HDC_10 08 2007DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 8, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Wesley Walls (in at 5:45) Kay Tatum Susan Bell Julie Wiedower Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Eve Gieringer Citizens Present: Boyd Maher, AHPP Chris Palmer Daniel Wassmuth Anne Limerick Conner Limerick Nancy Rennels Elsie Terry Don Terry Tina Boyd Wali Caradine Katherine Matthews John Tatum Approval of Minutes July 9, 2007 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes as submitted and was seconded by Commissioner Kay Tatum. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 1 Chairman Marshall Peters asked if the legal requirements for notification had been met on all items. Debra Weldon stated it had. A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to amend the agenda to move the new item before the deferred item. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the motion passed 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: October 8, 2007 APPLICANT: Daniel Wassmuth, CPAL Construction ADDRESS: 1015 Cumberland COA Vinyl Siding and soffits. REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1015 Cumberland. The property's legal description is "Lot 4 and the south 2 feet of Lot 3, Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 Survey lists this structure as an 1880's residence with major alterations. It is listed as non- contributing. It does share similarities with the house at 1017 Cumberland that is noted at as 1890's Queen Anne Cottage with the shape and form of the house and the attic vents. 1017 Cumberland is also a non - contributing structure because of artificial siding. This structure is not listed in the 1978 survey. Location of Project This application is a result of an enforcement action. The owners of the property installed vinyl siding on the rear and sides of the structure and vinyl soffits on the entirety of the structure; replaced windows; and replaced the front door. These repairs were done without a COA from the HDC. A permit was issued on July 16, 2007 which did not include exterior work to the house. The application also includes the following items: Window and front door replacement, window header modifications, front step modifications, and addition of columns to front porch. 3 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: There are no records of a COA being approved on this structure in the files. Existing west elevation Existing south and west elevation Existing north elevation PROPOSAL: The application is to approve the previously installed vinyl siding on both side facades and the rear of the structure in addition to vinyl soffits and fascia. The front of the house will be repainted to match the color of the vinyl siding on the sides of the house. A Certificate of Compliance (COC was issued for the repainting of the front. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Below is the Artificial siding policy. APPENDIX/: ARTIFICIAL SIDING POLICY Section V-35. of the Design Review Guidelines (1996 Edition), adopted by the Little Rock Historic District Commission (Commission), is amended as follows: 4 A. Siding original to the building V- 35. SIDING should be repaired rather than replaced, only where necessary due to deterioration. In considering exterior changes, the Commission will weigh the needs and desires of the applicant with the overall good of the Historic District. While each application will be considered on its merits, the Commission will utilize the following guidelines in order to best implement its preservation responsibilities: 1) The more historically significant the structure, the more concerned the Commission will be that the structure's exterior appearance will retain its historic integrity and character; 2) The more architecturally significant the structure, the more concerned the Commission will be that the structure's exterior retains its architectural compatibility; 3) The more visible the structure is from a public right -of -way, the greater the Commission's concern; 4) The closer the structure is to historically or architecturally significant structures, the more the Commission will be concerned, 5) Restoration of original material is the ideal method to be used in all projects; 6) Renovation using identical materials is the next preferred method of addressing exterior work to be performed; 7) Use of materials that were traditionally used within the Historic District when the structure was built is preferred; 8) Use of natural materials is normally preferred over the use of artificial or synthetic materials; 9) Architectural detailing and fenestration are often the most important characteristics of a structure. For these reasons, the use of artificial siding on structures within the Historic District is discouraged. However, each application that includes the use of artificial or synthetic siding will be carefully considered by the Commission and particular attention will be paid to any special circumstances that may make use of artificial or synthetic siding prudent or necessary. Likewise, the application will be carefully scrutinized by the Commission in terms of the effects of the proposed materials on the structure's style, historical integrity, structural and architectural integrity and the effect of the artificial or synthetic materials on the Historic District as a whole. In considering an application, the Commission may request that a sample of the proposed siding be installed for inspection by the Commission before a decision is made on the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. In addition, the Commission may request permission to inspect the exterior of the structure for 5 architectural detailing and fenestration that may be covered or lost, for structural soundness and for the absence or presence of evidence of sources of moisture that may cause the covered siding to decay, attract insects or create future structural problems. The Commission reserves the right to ask for technical advice or comments from the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program, architects, architectural conservators and other preservation experts concerning the application. The applicant is encouraged to provide expert perspectives on the proposed installation of artificial and synthetic siding and on the use of artificial or synthetic siding in historic districts. The Historic Preservation Administrator maintains reference materials on the use of artificial or synthetic siding in historic districts. This reference material shall be made available to any person considering the use of artificial or synthetic siding in the Historic District. The Commission reserves the right to have this material entered into the record of any application for the use of artificial or synthetic siding. The applicant is encouraged to provide, for the record and for review by the Commission, any additional material the applicant determines to be relevant to the issue of the appropriateness of the use of artificial or synthetic siding in the application. In those cases where siding is approved, the Commission shall have the right to inspect installation of the artificial or synthetic siding as it progresses in order to ensure adherence to the application and to protect the structure's trim, texture and architectural style and design. B. Siding of artificial or substitute materials, which include, but are not limited to, vinyls, aluminum, steel and plastic is discouraged. Notwithstanding this guideline, an applicant submitting an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be guided by the following principles: 1) The architectural character of the structure shall not be lost due to the covering of details, the removal of features or a change of scale; 2) The use of furring strips shall not change the relationship between the plane of the wall and the projecting elements such as windows, door trim, trim and molding or affect the shadow reveals; 3) The proposed artificial materials shall not be incongruous with the materials used by adjoining properties in the MacArthur Park Historic District (Historic District); 4) The application of artificial siding shall not harm the existing siding; 5) a) The proposed artificial material shall match the existing material in size, profile and finish; b) There shall be no change in the character of the structure; 6) The application of artificial siding shall not hide underlying problems that may progress unseen to the point where more extensive repairs are necessary; 6 7) The proposed artificial siding shall be easy to replace and match in style and color if a piece is damaged and must be removed; 8) The artificial siding shall not be adversely affected by extreme changes in temperature; 9) The installation of artificial siding shall not obscure, alter or remove architectural details of the structure: C. Wall shingles original to the building should be preserved, but if replacement is necessary, the new shingles should match the original shingles in size, placement and design (this includes decorative wood shingles of Victorian buildings, as well as wood or asphalt shingles of bungalow - period houses). D. Siding on non - historic (less than fifty [50] years old) buildings may be resided with smooth masonite lap siding or with wood clapboards. Historic siding materials such as weatherboard and wood shingles should be preserved and maintained. This structure is shown as non - contributing in the last survey. The resurvey, which is at the AHPP presently, has different standards for being deemed contributing or non- contributing based on a number of factors, artificial siding being one of them. With this being a non - contributing structure, not extremely architecturally or historically significant, there could be an argument to allow the artificial siding on the sides of the structure. Refer to Al, A2 and A4 above. The applicant has agreed to retain the original wood siding on the front facade and paint it to match the siding on the sides. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this application. A neighboring property owner asked questions as to the application parameters. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit for the exterior siding. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: October 8, 2007 A brief presentation was made by Brian Minyard, Staff. The presentation included that the enforcement item was broken into three different votes, one on the vinyl siding and soffits, the second on the replacement windows and new front door and the third is the front step modifications and addition of columns to the front porch. Comparisons were made between 1015 and 1017 Cumberland. The vinyl siding policy was presented in regards to this structure. Chairman Marshall Peters asked if the Staff visited the site when the dumpster was present. Staff said it did, but interior only work was being done. On a later trip, the vinyl 7 siding was noticed and enforcement proceeded. Guidelines were given to the applicants as part of the enforcement action before they filed. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked how permitting desk could communicate better with Staff on all permits. Mr. Minyard related how the permit system worked and previous mailings to all property owners. Daniel Wassmuth, the applicant, spoke that they were new property owners. The property was in terrible shape when they purchased it. They did not mean to violate the rules of the district. He continued speaking on repairs and renovations they had completed on the interior and exterior of the home. He stated that they did put in new windows that were the same size as the ones that came out. The older windows were aluminum. The soffits were replaced because of termite and severe water damage. They will paint the front of the structure including foundation to match the vinyl siding. Chris Palmer stated that others in the neighborhood had siding on the sides of the structures with wood on the front. They thought that they could do the siding based on the neighbors. Commissioner Wiedower commented about the selling of the property versus it becoming a rental. She was curious about taking down the front porch enclosure. Mr. Palmer said they had considered having it a rental at the time they purchased it, but decided to sell it. The proposed owner chose to keep the area as a closet space in the master bedroom. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they had considered larger windows. Mr. Palmer responded that larger windows had been considered. The larger windows meant a lower sill and they thought it to be more inviting for break -ins. Mr. Minyard asked if the conversation about windows could be continued in item #2. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Palmer what kind of realtor he was. Mr. Palmer answered that he worked for Keller Williams part time on his own projects. Chairman Peters commented that a realtor is responsible to know the laws and rules of a particular neighborhood. He continued that a permit for interior work only had been issued that did not cover the vinyl siding. Wali Caradine, a property owner at 1001 Cumberland, commented that he had met the gentleman. He was at the meeting to appeal for a sidewalk renovation. Bricks were missing out of one of the few brick sidewalks left. Commissioner Wiedower asked if he was talking about the sidewalk parallel to the street. Mr. Caradine stated that the city had built a modified handicap ramp at the corner to be sympathetic to the brick sidewalk. Boyd Maher, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, stated that the retention of vinyl siding was a careful decision to make. The state office has reviewed the application. It is dangerous material, can rot the wood underneath, and when on fire reduces toxic 8 smoke. The structure has been altered, but do the alterations made fifty years ago make it un- historic? On non - contributing structures, are the proposed changes going to take this structure further away from the historic qualities of the structure? We cannot make them restore it, but we can ask them not to make this less historic. Mr. Palmer stated that some of the siding was warped and cracked. They insulated inside the house by spraying in the cavity and did not want the moisture or water getting in the cavities of the house. They tried to reduce the mold and moisture into the house. They tried to please their client. Mr. Palmer noted that they would clean up the sidewalk. It was noted by one of the commissioners that Antique Brick Company at 9th and Shall Street has replacement bricks for any replacement brick in the sidewalk. Mr. Palmer noted that they would clean up the sidewalk. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked if all of the soffits were vinyl now. Mr. Palmer answered yes. All of the corner vertical boards are wood. Commissioner Wiedower does not have issues with the soffits but does have a problem with some of the other siding. She continued that she thought the house was non - contributing structure because of the replacement windows (prior to their ownership) and the porch enclosure. It is a strong block in the district architecturally for size of structures and types of buildings. She added that she thinks that the north wall of the front porch is as visible as the front of the house and that the vinyl siding should come off that part of the building. Chairman Peters clarified the application on the siding and soffits. If the vote is denial, all of it comes off, the siding and the soffits. Commissioner Tatum wanted to know when the applicant could come back. The substantially different application rule was discussed. A discussion ensued to split the vote into soffits and siding separately. Commissioner Wiedower asked how the applicant would amend his application to exclude the north side of the enclosed porch. The applicant said yes. Mr. Palmer stated that the porch was filled in during 1923 by evidence of newspapers that were found in the walls. He continued that there were three types of siding on the house. Chairman Peters commented that the application could be modified. Mr. Wassmuth commented that the buildings across the street have vinyl siding on the side and wood on the front and to the eye it would not detract from the area. There was a discussion on voting on the vinyl soffits and siding in separate votes. It was decided that it was possible to do it since one was independent of the other. The applicants amended their application to have separate votes on the siding and the soffits. 9 The motion was made by Commissioner Tatum to approve the soffits as proposed with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Commissioner Wesley Walls entered the meeting at 5:45 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedower to approve the siding as amended (vinyl siding to remain on three sides of the structure an be removed from the north wall of the front porch infill) and was seconded by Commissioner Kay Tatum. The motion passed with 3 ayes, 1 no and 1 abstention. 10 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: October 8, 2007 APPLICANT: Daniel Wassmuth, CPAL Construction ADDRESS: 1015 Cumberland COA Window and front door replacement. REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1015 Cumberland. The property's legal description is "Lot 4 and the south 2 feet of Lot 3, Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 Survey lists this structure as an 1880's residence with major alterations. It is listed as non- contributing. It does share similarities with the house at 1017 Cumberland that is noted at as 1890's Queen Anne Cottage with the shape and form of the house and the attic vents. It is also a non - contributing structure because of artificial siding. This structure is not listed in the 1978 survey Location of Project This application is a result of an enforcement action. The owners of the property installed vinyl siding on the rear and sides of the structure and vinyl soffits on the entirety of the structure; replaced windows; and replaced the front door. These repairs were done without a COA from the HDC. A permit was issued on July 16, 2007 that did not include exterior work to the house. The application also includes the following items: Vinyl Siding and soffits, window and front door replacement, window header modifications, front step modifications, and addition of columns to front porch. 11 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: There are no records of a COA being approved on this structure in the files. Existing west elevation 1017 Cumberland PROPOSAL: The proposed application is to approve previously installed vinyl windows on all of the structure and a new steel front door. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on Page 52: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character - defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary fagade or to a secondary fagade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. The windows that were replaced were not original to the structure; they were mid - century aluminum windows. The current size of the opening was modified as evidenced on the front siding. The original windows appear to have been the same size as the windows at 1017 Cumberland. The replacement windows are one over one, as opposed to the six over six as the house at 1017 Cumberland. 1015 Cumberland does share similarities with the house at 1017 Cumberland (an 1890's Queen Anne Cottage) with the shape and form of the house and the attic vents. 12 Replacement windows on filled in porch Proposed Window head modification (1017) The request is also to add a detail to the window head to duplicate the head of the window on 1017 Cumberland. This would include a piece of small crown molding on the top of the head of the window as shown in the picture to the right. The Front door has been replaced with a steel door with six simulated panels. The transom has been retained and glass will be installed in it. The door appears to be the same width as the original door. The applicant noted the door was replaced because the door had been busted over time and was non-repairable. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this application. A neighboring property owner asked questions as to the application parameters. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit for window and door replacement. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. Replacement Front Door COMMISSION ACTION: October 8, 2007 A brief presentation was made by Brian Minyard, Staff. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked about the modification to the front window header on the left as being the same as the modification to the one on the right. Mr. Palmer commented that the header modification on the left window would be smaller than the right because of the lower soffit. Chairman Marshall Peters stated that he had problems with the door. Chris Palmer, the applicant, wanted to separate the door vote from the window vote. Daniel Wassmuth, 13 an applicant, commented that when the application was made, they did not group items together. Staff explained that he had separated the item into three votes. It was decided to split the item into two votes: windows and doors. Window Vote: Commissioner Walls asked if the applicant was seeking approval of the installed windows and the modification to the header. The answer by Staff was both windows and modifications. Mr. Palmer stated the windows were broken out and damaged and the metal framing was bent. The Vinyl windows were built to custom size. He continued about security problems on the house and stated that the wireless alarm is programmed to go to his cell phone. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the front windows were the same size and if they had considered making them the same size. Commissioner Walls commented that they may be lower in elevation. Mr. Palmer stated that they were relatively the same size. Chairman Peters stated that they are much better than what was there before. Mr. Wassmuth added that the custom windows were ordered to size to the holes that were there before. Tina Boyd, 617 Cumberland, stated that she looked at the house when it was for sale. Her agent would not go in the house. She continued that the commission would not appreciate a bulldozer permit that she would have asked for. It is a vast improvement over what it was like before. Chairman Peters also noted he had visited the house. Ms. Boyd asked about wood windows in the front windows only. Mr. Palmer asked to verify that the wood windows would be the same size as the ones there now. Chairman Peters stated that the commission could not make the applicants go back to the original windows. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about amending their application with Staff approval of the proposed window. Commissioner Walls expounded on his mantra of ill sized cheap windows are bad and can ruin a project. It is a shame to have vinyl windows on the front facade. He strongly encouraged a better wood clad window — wood windows with exterior cladding of aluminum or vinyl with correct muntions applied to exterior and interior, not only between the glass. Mr. Palmer asked if it was permissible to get a new window instead of a historic window. Mr. Palmer asked to amend his application to include wood windows with exterior cladding on the front windows only. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the amended application with Staff approval of windows and Staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 14 Door vote. Mr. Palmer noted that the door chosen was the most appropriate for a historic look. His client did not want glass panes in the door for security reasons. The transom was found inside of the wall and the porcelain numbers were found and will be restored to the original place. There were no citizens to speak on this issue. Chairman Peters commented that he did not like a steel door facing the street. A wood door would be much more appropriate. Commissioner Walls asked if the objection to the material or the fact that it was without glass. Chairman Peters answered that it was both. He preferred to have a door with glass in it. Commissioner Wiedower noted that with generous molding, the door will read okay from the street. Commissioner Walls commented that he was okay with the material being painted, but did concur that it would be better with glass in it, maybe narrow or smaller panes of glass. Mr. Palmer amended his application for a steel door with some glass included in it with Staff approval. Mr. Wassmuth added that glass on the front of the door that allowed a view into the home would not be okay. Chairman Peters added that curtains or drapery could be added. Wally Caradine asked about the sidewalks. Chairman Peters stated that it was not on the agenda for the COA that was being heard but asked if Mr. Caradine was satisfied with Staff working with the applicants on the sidewalk repair. The answer was yes. Mr. Minyard reminded the commission that a COC could be issued to the applicant to repair the sidewalk. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as amended with Staff recommendations and Staff approval of choice of steel door with some glass included. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, and 0 noes. 15 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Three. DATE: October 8, 2007 APPLICANT: Daniel Wassmuth, CPAL Construction ADDRESS: 1015 Cumberland COA Front step modifications and addition of columns to front porch. REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1015 Cumberland. The property's legal description is "Lot 4 and the south 2 feet of Lot 3, Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 Survey lists this structure as an 1880's residence with major alterations. It is listed as non- contributing. It does share similarities with the house at 1017 Cumberland that is noted at as 1890's Queen Anne Cottage with the shape and form of the house and the attic vents. It is also a non - contributing structure because of artificial siding. The front porch was filled in previously. The owner said he found evidence of 1920's newspapers in the porch fill in area. This structure is not listed in the 1978 survey. Location of Project This application is a result of an enforcement action. The owners of the property installed vinyl siding on the rear and sides of the structure and vinyl soffits on the entirety of the structure; replaced windows; and replaced the front door. These repairs were done without a COA from the HDC. A permit was issued on July 16, 2007 that did not include exterior work to the house. 16 The application also includes the following items: Vinyl Siding and soffits, window and front door replacement, and window header modifications. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: There are no records of a COA being approved on this structure in the files. PROPOSAL: The proposed changes are to install two columns on either side of porch opening and to add wooden porch steps and railing over the existing concrete porch steps. The columns would be round columns with Doric capitols and bases as shown below. These columns are "PremaCast" fiber reinforced polymer composite columns. They would be offset from the Close -up of porch area wall less than six inches and would be the height of the opening. The existing concrete steps would be covered with wooden steps and handrails. The applicant has expressed an interest in doing this to make the steps symmetrical with the opening for the porch area. The porch infill maximized the space enclosed that left the porch steps off centered to the porch opening. Details of the porch handrail Existing west elevation will need to be presented to Staff. This house is listed as an 1880's residence with major alterations. It may be impossible to establish what the original structure looked like. However, it is Staff's opinion that embellishing this structure with additional columns and overlaying the concrete steps with wooden ones in not necessary appropriate for the neighborhood or this structure. If the porch were being restored to the original size, the issue of columns would definitely be an issue, both structurally and aesthetically. Staff would be supportive of a simple handrail installed for safety reasons along side the existing steps. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this application. A i neighboring property owner asked questions as to the application parameters. Proposed Column STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial: 17 COMMISSION ACTION: October 8, 2007 Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if one was contingent on the other (steps versus columns). Daniel Wassmuth, the applicant, answered that they were trying to make the front of the house look better. If only one was not passed, it would be done. Brian Minyard, Staff made a brief presentation of the item. Porch Columns Vote: Chris Palmer, the applicant, stated that the porch is made of wood and has rotted in the past. The roof looks like it slopes to the south, but does not. There is only two 2x4's holding up the roof at that point — the header is not sufficient. Square posts are proposed with the ionic as noted into the brochure. They replaced the valleys with metal flashing and replaced the roll roofing on the porch. Commissioner Susan Bell asked how wide is the opening of the porch was. Mr. Palmer answered about seven feet. Mr. Wassmuth commented that the porch floor is wood, and Mr. Palmer clarified that it was parquet flooring on the porch. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked if they considered taking the existing concrete steps out totally. The answer was that the steps would be encased in the wood steps and not be visible. Commissioner Wesley Walls added that the proper way is to preserve what is there, not to embellish what was not there. The commission is not about prettying things up. Mr. Palmer suggested maybe adding a valance like at 1017. Commissioner Walls said that he thought it would be okay to mimic the header of the porch next door. No citizens spoke concerning this application. A discussion occurred concerning the style of the posts and mimicking the porch next door. Mr. Palmer amended his application to include a 4x4 post on each side of the porch with an arched valance. The 4x4 post would be cut into the siding with Staff review. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as amended. Commissioner Wiedower seconded and the motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, and 0 noes. Steps Vote: The Staff presentation was previously made with the column presentation. Mr. Palmer stated that the proposed steps would match the width of the opening of the porch. Chairman Marshall Peters asked about the thickness of the wood in the treads. The applicant answered that the threads would be 2x10 treads with risers. The steps would be painted. Mr. Palmer stated that the concrete steps would be boxed in and will not see the old concrete steps afterwards. Chairman Peters asked if the treads would have a nosing detail. The answer was it would be a plain 2x10. Mr. Palmer answered that the steps would be built to code. Commissioner Walls said that he believed that handrails would be necessary. Discussion continued on whether a handrail was 18 Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the steps and handrail as amended with Staff review and approval on the handrail design. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The vote was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 19 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: September 10, 2007 APPLICANT: Tina and Andrew Boyd ADDRESS: 614 Rock Street COA New single family home REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 614 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 2 Charles and Tina Boyd Replat to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This application is for a new single family home to be built on a vacant lot. This action is also an item on the Planning Commission agenda of September 27, 2007 for a Revision to a PRD for a change to the rear setback of the structure and the addition of a swimming pool into the courtyard area. This location was reviewed by the HDC on July 14, 2005 when all three houses were reviewed and Location of Project approved. The planning Commission approved the zoning on July 7, 2007 subject to HDC approval. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 7, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for three single family houses at 614 Rock, 618 Rock, and 617 Cumberland. 614 Rock Street 20 618 Rock Street Proposed east elevation 610 Rock Street 614 Rock Street (not to scale) 624 Rock Street 620 Rock Street PROPOSAL: This infill house is located on a street with primarily residential uses on it. There are three two-story houses south of it and to the north is a one -story house that has been converted to an office use with a modern addition further to the north. On the other side of the street are one and two story houses that are a mix of residential and office uses. The feel of the street is still residential since there are no parking lots visible from Rock Street in this block. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape: The shape of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings. It is primarily deeper on the lot than wide, which is typical of the historic and new residential on that block face. The roof is a hip roof, which is used on surrounding buildings. 21 2. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is similar to other buildings on the street. The proposed height of the house is about 35' to the ridgeline and the garage is about 27'. The house at 618 Rock Street is a similar height to the proposed height. The proposed house is taller than 610 Rock but shorter than 620 and 624 Rock Street. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed roof is a hip roof with dormers on the east, south and north fagades. The facade of the front of the dormers are in the same plane as the walls of the first floor. The roof will be covered in composition architectural asphalt shingles. The roof pitch on the bulk of the house is 12/12 with 12/8 on the dormers and 4/12 on the front porch. The garage has a pitch of 8/12 with gable ends and the ridgeline on the north south axis. 4. Orientation to the street: The primary entrance to the house is on Rock Street, as are the others on the block face. It does not have a driveway on Rock Street, only one property does (610 Rock). 5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays: The house will have single and two and three ganged windows. Most of the windows are of a proportion with the long axis being vertical. The exceptions are two windows on the south elevation near the rear of the house and a single window on the north elevation near the rear of the house. These windows are near the rear of the house and should not be considered incompatible. The porch is proposed to cover almost the entirety of the front facade. Two of three historic houses have a porch that is full width and another has been filled in. The new house to the south has a full width front porch. Some houses on that block face have center entrances and some are to the side. This proposed entrance is in the center. 6. Foundation height: The foundation height is to be up to 24" high. The other houses have a slightly higher foundation as measured by the number of steps that are into the houses. 7. Floor to ceiling height: The first floor has 10 -foot ceilings and the second floor has 9 foot. 8. Porch height and depth: The porch depth is 8 feet deep and is one story tall. This is similar to the majority of porches in the block. 9. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if framed – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The exterior of the house and garage will be queen size brick with wood siding on soffits and fascia. The railing on the front porch will be brick with a masonry cap. The windowsills on the front of the house will have masonry sills while the remainder of the window sills will be of brick. 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: Trim around windows will be similar to the houses constructed at 618 Rock and 617 Cumberland. 22 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The proposed footprint of the primary building is 36'-0' wide and 69'-0" deep including front porch. The detached garage and upstairs apartment is 36'-0" by 24'-0" deep. All measurements do not include a brick veneer surface. There is a 7'-0" wide breezeway connecting them on the north side of the structures. The north setback is 5' and the south setback is 4' as approved previously by the PC and HDC. There is a proposed change in the location of the detached garage to shift it 3'-0" to the west. This will line up with the existing garage to the south at 618 Rock Street and will disturb less of the roots of the tree that is on the property line of 614 and 610 Rock Street. The setback from Rock Street is 11' as previously approved by the Planning Commission (PC) and the Historic District Commission (HDC). According to measurements from the GIS, the structures in that block (on both sides of the street) range from 10 to 27 feet front setback. The average is 18 feet. The front setback of 610 Rock Street (Answerfone) is approximately 10.5 feet, as estimated by counting bricks. The setback will be perceived to be the same as 610 Rock and will be two feet closer than 618 Rock. Overall, the setback of the new structure is compatible with the block face. This lot is zoned PRD — Planned Residential District. If this were R-4A zoning like the lots to the south, the setbacks would be 15 feet front setback and five feet side setbacks. If the zoning was UU like the lots to the north, the front setback and north side setbacks could be zero feet and the south setback would be 4 feet. The proposed setbacks on the front and sides are similar to the other built structures in the block face and are between the parameters set for the zoning districts to the north and south of the property. The previously approved garage was a three car and has been reduced to a two car garage with additional storage area and screened in porch. The gross area remains the same as before. Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. Staff does not feel that this statement applies to this application. 23 Additional items to review: The application includes signage that is similar to the signage at Answerfone. It is to be located in the northeast corner of the lot. The sign is for the contracting business (Boyd Homes, Inc.) that is to be run out of the home. Lighting on the front porch is to be a wall mounted fixture on each side of the front door and one can recessed light near each end of the front porch for a total of four lights. The actual fixtures have not been selected as of the filing of the application. IT, ytilBIPI�C I- - Additional facts about the zoning application that is not subject Sign at Answerfone to HDC review: • The PRD application also includes a small swimming pool to be located in the courtyard area. This is not subject to review by the HDC. • There is a proposed set of fire escape stairs coming out of the upstairs apartment on the north side of the garage and exiting towards the west into the parking area. These will not be visible from the street and are not subject to review by the HDC. Staff believes this to be an appropriate infill development on this site. It has similar materials, textures, color, mass, height, scale, bulk, etc as the other structures in the area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were four residents of the area that had questions regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days 4. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit. 5. Submittal of final window design to Staff. If windows are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 6. Submittal of final lighting fixtures on front porch to Staff for Staff approval. 7. Submittal of final signage plan to Staff for Staff Approval. STAFF UPDATE: The meeting of September 10, 2007 did not meet due to lack of a quorum. The Applicant has asked to modify their application on Saturday, September 8, 2007 via email. The change is that the north facade of the building will be seven feet from the property line instead of five feet. The setback approved by the planning commission is five feet. 24 The original cover letter had items of solar collectors. The Guidelines state: Solar energy panels should be located on rear sections of the roof, behind dormers or gables or other areas not visible from the street. There is ample room for solar collectors on the south facing roof behind the bedroom #3 dormer or on the west facing roof. This would meet the intents of the guidelines. In the 2005 agenda item, fencing was reviewed in the Staff report but was not included in the motion. 624 and 620 Rock Street have iron fencing in the front of the structures along Rock Street. This fence is proposed to be along the sidewalk and return to the west along the side property lines toward the house. The fence would be between 30 and 36 inches tall, be painted black metal, and have finals on the end post and balusters. Staff believes this fence to be appropriate for this location. Iron fence detail STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days 2. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit. 3. Submittal of final window design to Staff. If windows are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 4. Submittal of final lighting fixtures on front porch to Staff for Staff approval. 5. Submittal of final signage plan to Staff for Staff Approval. 6. Submittal of all fencing designs to Staff. 7. Submittal of location and size of solar collectors for Staff approval prior to installation. COMMISSION ACTION: October 8, 2007 Kay Tatum stated for the record that she was recusing on this item since she is a property owner within 150 feet. She left the room during the hearing. Brian Minyard, Staff for the HDC, made a brief presentation about the item. It is a single family home to be built on a vacant lot. This is a revision to a COA. It was explained about the separate item to the Planning Commission. Revisions have been made to the application in the Staff Update. 25 Mr. Minyard described the setbacks of the proposed house, the height, the front door and front porch, foundation height and ceiling height, etc are similar the existing houses in the area. He reviewed the Staff recommendation as stated in the Staff report. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if a COA had already been approved, why we are here. Mr. Minyard answered that the hearing is because the proposed house is different in size, shape and look of the approved and the proposed structure. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked about the drawings. It was explained that the drawing were sent in the September package, not in the October package. Elevations were unrolled at that time. The applicant Tina Boyd, of Boyd Homes, stated that she lives at 617 Cumberland now and that she got approved for a plan for the third home, the site of the present application. The plan has changed to add a second floor to facilitate a home office and security issues. They are trying to add a pool in the courtyard. She continued that there was no setback changes from the approved plan. The original plan approved is not as nice as this one is. It will be in keeping with the other homes on the street. This will be her seventh home to build since 2005 in downtown Little Rock. She has a proven track record with the HDC and the CZDC and wants to please them. She has gotten rave reviews on her houses. Ms. Boyd would like to add solar collectors and would like to discuss options. She will have architectural shingles or maybe architectural slate shingles on the house. The windows will be Anderson or Peachtree windows of wood clad with no dividers. The outside cladding will be white or french vanilla color. They will be double hung or casement, probably with the back ones being casements and the front ones being double hung. She continued that the neighborhood is very diverse with 3 foot to 8 -foot setbacks. Some of the structures need some maintenance attention. There are a variety of apartments, businesses, and a variety of square footages. There are many exceptions to the rules into the neighborhood. There are many exemptions in the past and she is not asking for more than the norm in the area. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the setbacks. Ms. Boyd replied that they are 5 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south. She is building to 7 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south to help preserve the trees. They are hackberry trees located near the north property line. She has talked to Pete Rausch (city arborist) and she trimmed the trees last winter in preparation. She has every intention of keeping the trees. A concrete driveway lies to the north of the trees across the property line that is in the root zone. Commissioner Walls asked about the decision not to have muntions in the windows. Ms. Boyd responded that she preferred not to have the divided lites. Commissioner 26 Wiedower commented that the sizes of the windows looked compatible with the historic stock in the area. She asked about the front door being twin doors and if she would be willing to change them. Ms. Boyd replied what ever the commission wants. There was a comment that there are houses with double doors into the area. Chairman Marshall Peters commented about the pitch on the gable roof. Commissioner Walls asked what material were the columns made of. Ms. Boyd replied that they were wood columns. She continued that the house would have masonry sills on the first floor windowsills and brick sills on the second floor. A brick soldier course will be on all windows on the headers. Chairman Peters asked if there were citizens in support of the application. Ms. Boyd stated that she had a letter from 619 Rock Street in support of the application, David Garner, and Alice Lightle spoke in support at the Planning Commission hearing. She provided a copy of the letter to Staff. Chairman Peters asked if there were citizens in opposition to the application. Conner Limerick spoke in opposition to the application. He owns the property to the north. He appreciates the Boyd's and the new downtown development. He has a list of people in opposition to the proposal and provided a copy to Staff. He asked why he was being ignored on the issue of the size and height of the structure. The original application was for a one-story house and now it is a one and one half or two story. He currently owns an 1833 cottage and has been there 35 years. He likes being downtown. He objects to the mass of the brickwork on the front porch. He commented that his cottage would disappear with the mass of the next-door structure. He related his plight to the one at Cantrell and Spruce. The mass of the proposed structure will make his structure disappear from view. He stated that the 3000 sf one-story house was okay. The problem is of his structure disappearing from view. His ground level, and therefore his structure, is four feet lower than hers. He also worries about the tree's survival. His driveway was built a long time ago and does not have as much impact on the tree as her new house would. He wants her to go back to the one story house. Nancy Rennels, lives at 619 Rock, and spoke in opposition to the application. She has comments or question on the porch. Mr. Minyard explained that the new application with its differences were on the table for review at this hearing. She feels that the porch is very solid and bulky. She commented that when the previous work was done on Rock Street, that there was no area for construction traffic. Anne Limerick spoke in opposition to the application. She stated the mass was too big for the size of the lot. She stated that houses are not as tight on other areas of the street and that the house will appear to be huge, a mcmansion. She added that there was more green space in between the existing houses on the street. She said that 27 there were eight building on the block and five out of the eight property owners object. Of the three that do not object, one is for sale, and another was on the market. She added that the Ms. Boyd is a customer of the antique brick man, who wrote a letter of support for the application. She continued to speak of the neighbors that objected to the proposed house. She did state that a house is better than an empty lot. Mr. Minyard commented that during the Planning Commission hearing, the Fire Department reviews and comments on all applications. Mr. Limerick commented that the fire escape that was approved was wood. Mr. Minyard commented that it would have to meet fire codes. John Tatum, a property owner at 624 Rock, Street spoke in opposition to the application. He commented that he was not notified on this. He stated the mass was too big and that the setbacks vary in that area. He commented about the difficulty of doing repairs on the sides of the houses with the small setbacks and fences. Elise Terry of DDF Consulting spoke in opposition to the application representing the owners of DDF. She stated they appreciated the building, but with buildings becoming too close together, a security issues arises. No vegetation can grow in between the houses. She said the house was too large and that they want to be a good neighbor. She commented on the green space between the existing houses. Katherine Matthews spoke in opposition to the application. She is in agreement with the others. She asked would there be any grass in the front of the house. Don Terry with DDF Consulting stated that he was in opposition to the application. Ms. Boyd responded to the questions and comments posed by the citizens. She stated that she had talked with Tommy Braswell. She quoted that he purchased his house into the 250 thousand range and it is on the market for 439 thousand. She stated that increased property values are not a reason to support a project, but are a good indication that people are appreciating what we are doing. She stated that she buys half of her brick from Acme Brick and does not know Mr. Garner personally. On the issue of the small cottage disappearing, she stated that his porch is closer to the street than hers is proposed to be. She feels that his mass will be lost from view. She continued that there would be 17 feet between her house and the structure to the north. This is a good separation. She currently has approval for a house on the lot. It has a larger footprint on the site than the proposed one. The front setback on the new version will be further back than the original one and further back than the porch to the north. The staging area for the construction will be in the rear of the house. The sidewalk will be blocked off in the front and she admitted it would be tight. 28 She added that there are many 3000 sf houses downtown. She said that she would not build a mcmansion. The lot is not significantly smaller than other lots downtown. It was not the look that she desired. Many of the houses in the area are closer than these. It is part of the charm of being downtown. The wood fire escape from the rear unit is similar to the wood fire escapes in other parts of downtown. She will adhere to what the building codes dictates on that issue. She is disappointed that the neighbors are not in support of this application. The landscaping in the front of this house will be similar to the landscaping at 618 Cumberland There will be lots of grass into the front with beds. Mr. Tatum commented that he did not get a certified letter about this application. She commented that a new property owner does not always show up on the title search. Ms. Boyd continued that she was not asking to do anything that everyone else has not been done before. She does not put vegetation between the houses; instead, she puts pea gravel much. The fences will prevent transient traffic. She stated that the transient traffic has been reduced since the fences went up. Commissioner Wiedower asked if there are windows on the south side of the Answerfone building and how wide the driveway was. The answer was yes to the windows and the driveway was "narrow." The drive is wide enough to use. Mr. Limerick commented that he had to set his brick addition area back. Commissioner Wiedower commented that it is different when change comes to a neighborhood. She continued that she noticed the lot was terraced on the lot next door, so the new structure will appear more massive than it actually is. Commissioner Wiedower discussed the width and height of the proposed and existing structure. Ms. Boyd commented that the approved and proposed houses are the same width. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the brick columns would tend to blend into the wall. The sizes of the columns are more Craftsman size and some porches were more modest. Ms. Boyd stated she was not opposed to changing the look of the porch. She commented that her husband likes the privacy of the front porch. Commissioner Wiedower commented on the brick railing of the porch. Commissioner Walls commented on the proposed side setbacks. Mr. Minyard commented that he did not have that answer. He said that it would be similar to the other existing houses. Commissioner Walls asked to clarify if the application was asking for a 4-foot and a seven-foot setback on the home. He asked what the typical setback was. Ms. Boyd said it was five feet. Commissioner Walls commented that he did not understand the concern if the proposed side setbacks were similar to the others in the area. Chairman Peters commented on his current house and the setbacks and height. Mr. Limerick talked about the distance between the houses on both side of the street. He stated the side setback was generally 8-9 feet apart from houses on the southern most three structures. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the three houses 29 have front facing second or third floor gable. She continued that the one and one half story house would appear less of a mass. Mr. Minyard added that the photos in the report were all taken from the sidewalk across the street with the same zoom. They could be used as a gage for the distance between the houses. He also mentioned that there was a burned house that was never built back and that the Braswell's own two lots. Two additional houses could be on that side of the street, thus reducing the side setbacks that are there now. The rhythm is not there since the two houses are not there. He continued that zoning and the five-foot setback came into being in 1939. With knowing the setbacks as discussed today, Staff would still argue that the setbacks proposed are compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Walls stated that he was still having a hard time understanding the scale issue concerns of the citizens. Commissioner Wiedower understands the concerns of Answerfone. The trees in the front tend to make the building disappear. It is fortunate to have a driveway on that side of the building that adds visibility. Commissioner Walls said that mass is more at play than the setback issues. Commissioner Wiedower is appalled by what is happening into the Heights and other areas. The ground height, by way of the terraces, is historic. If the site were excavated, the mass would be less dominating. On the other hand, that takes away from the historic nature of the area. Ms. Boyd answered that they could not excavate the site to lower the elevation. Mr. Limerick said the one story house previously approved was more acceptable than the proposed story and a half. He asked if she would put the mass of the house on the back instead of the front. Chairman Peters asked if Ms. Boyd was amenable to revising the front porch. She stated that maybe putting in wood columns and a wood handrail. Chairman Peters restated what he thought was being said that the porch was a lot of mass and it might be better with a less massive design. Commissioner Walls commented that there was not anything wrong with that style, and that any change would be for the neighbors. He understands the concern of the heft of the porch. The brick does not lighten the impact of the porch. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did like the fact that the applicant did not attempt to "Walt Disney" the houses. Chairman Peters stated that he did not personally have a problem with the massiveness of the front porch. Commissioner Wiedower stated that brick or stone always looks more massive but that probably does not satisfy the neighborhood. 30 Chairman Peters asked for a motion. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as proposed with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and one recusal (Tatum). Staff informed the commission and the public that this item was proceeding to the Board of Directors for the Zoning Request. They were informed that is was going to the Board on Tuesday, November 8, 2007. 31 BOYD HOME, Inc-- LETTER OF APPLCATION PROPOSAL FOR 614 ROCK STREET - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Changes to the proposed residence at 614 Rock Street are submitted for review. The location is within the Little Rock Historic District - MacArthur Park. Changes: 1. Request for revisions to the footprint and design of the home. 2. Request for small sign similar to the Answerfone sign to advertise my business (Boyd Homes, Inc) to be located on the north side of the access sidewalk. 3. Request for small pool to be added in the courtyard. Paul is not visible. From street or parking areas. The house will be brick and compatible to surrounding structures in foundation height, roof height and pitch, and exterior appearance Extensive landscaping will he done to ensure the property conforms to surrounding landscape within two years of construction. This location is zoned as R-4A, but the Little Rock Code allows R -5 Urban Residential in this area. A Planned Zoning Development change request (PD-R, Z-7879 Revision) has been submitted to the subdivision committee to allow fur these changes. The change will be in keeping with surrounding property. No changes to lot size are requested. Surrounding property south of the proposed homes includes two new, two story homes completed in 2006, two residential style homes (two stories) that have been converted to apartments, one apartment above a 3 car garage, and two four -plex apartments that are two stories. North of the proposed homes are the one story Answerfone building, a multi-unit two story apartment complex and a paved parking lot. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The legal description of the lot is Lot 2, CHARLES AND TINA BOYD REPLAT of the South half of Lot 4 and the North half of Lot 5 Block 41 and the West 10 feet of alley closed by Ordinance No. 12,745 lying next to lots, and the North half of Lot 8 and all of Lot 9, Block 41 and the east I0 feet of alley closed by Ordinance No. 12,745 lying next to lots. Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. 614 Rock Street Facing Rock Street and nearest to Answerfone building ­~3100 square feet 4 Bedrooms 3.5 Baths 2 Story structure with foundation and roof height similar to 618 Rock Street Metal fence in front lawn Pool in private courtyard 2 Car detached garage with covered walkway (3 car was previously approved) Garage with apartrmod above (approved in previous application) Apartment (no changes proposed from original Certificate of Approval request) Above the garage ~900 square feet 1 Bedronm with walk-in closet 1 Bath Kitchenette Fire escape stairs (painted wood) to be located on the north side within the 5' setback. Tina & Andrew Boyd, 1715 Magnolia Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202, 501-804-4349 Cover Letter from Applicant 32 BOYD HOME, Inc-- LETTER OF APPLICATION SITE PLAN - DETAILS Minor changes to the house footprint are planned. See site plan for more detail. Extensive landscaping in the front lawas and the private courtyard is planned. Landscape plants will he purchased at a size that will mature in 2 -3 years. The courtyard between the house and garage will ha fenced with a six foot privacy wood fence. Every attempt will he made to save all of the trees on the northern edge of the property. Peter Rausch with the City of Little Rock Urban Forestry department has been contacted. A 3' change in rear setback has been requested with the City of Little Rock in order to aUaw more space for tree roots. A security light will be installed on the exterior of the garage directing light an the garage openings. The light will automatically turn on if movement is detected near the garage doors. Other exterior lighting will be similar to surrounding houses in look and will be approved with Staff prior to purchase. A light at each front door and back door is planned. Garbage cans and recycle bins will he stored in the garage and not visible from the street except on collection day. MATERIALS AND FEATURES - COMMON TO ALL HOMES Exterior (most were previously approved) Brick Masonry window stools on front (see picture) Woad Soffit/Fascia Wood double-hung and /or casement windows Wood front door-double Fiberglass insulated doors an rear entrances Architectural shingles Extensive landscaping in front Private courtyard between garage and house with pool and extensive landscaping Irrigatiun system: front, sides, end courtyard Detached garage with covered breezewny between house and garage Wood fence around courtyard and private drive Private drive shared by all three houses Primary Buildings: The principal house structure will have the largest footprint and be the tallest structure on the lot. The foundation and ceiling heights will match neighboring structures, specifically 618 Rock Street. Two Story First Floor Ceding Height -10' Second Fluor Ceiling Height - 9' Foundation Height- tip to 24" Outbuildings: Garage Located at rear of Iot Foundation Height - minimum Ceiling Height - 9' Apartment above with 9' ceilings Tina & Andrew Boyd, 1715 Magnolica Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202, 501-804-4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 33 BOYD HOME, Inc— LETTER OF APPLICATION Architectural Details: Shingles - Composition Architectural Style Roof Pitch— 6/12 minimum Eave —12" overhang Eave Trim —Wood Awnings and Canopies: 0ptional metal awing on back courtyard door of main structure. Brickwork: Queen size brick from Antique Brick (color /style to be Cotton Row). with masonry windowsills on front of houses using natural color mortar. Chimneys: None Curb Cuts: Nut applicable Decks: Wood fire escape for apartment above the garage to be painted. Doors: Front Door — Wood Rear and Side Doors — Fiberglass or metal Fans: In breezeway and an front porch (no lights attached to fan). light to he attached close to ceiling and minimally visible from the street. Fences: Front yard — 3 foot metal daroraiive fence (design to be approved by Staff prior to installation). Courtyard — 6' Wood privacy fence. Parking area — 6' Woad privacy fence Driveway — Wood privacy fence Foundations: Block with brick veneer — all houses Foundation Height — up to 24" Foundation height will match neighboring structures (will be between height of 618 Rock and 610 Rock). Garbage Collectors: To he kept in garage. Gutters/Boxed: Site- fabricated aluminum gutters. Hanging Gutters/Downspouts: Site-fabricated aluminum gutters/downspouts to be placed un sides or rear of home. Tina & Andrew Boyd, 1715 Magnoda Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202,50I-804-4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 34 BOYD HOME, Inc- LETTER OF APPLICATION Landscaping: -COA not required and plan is nut complete at tlds time. Landscape will be similar to the home at 617 Cumberland Street which was completed earlier in 2006. -Trees on north side of property to remain unless diseased. Light Fixtures: - Type/Style Unknown - front fixtures to be approved by Commission staff prior to installation. -Front Porch: one Fixture on either side of the front door, two recessed can lights. - Courtyard: Two small directional spotlights at garage entry door and at rear door of home. Low voltage landscape lighting around pool area (not to be directed at another home) -Garage: One motion detector light. Mechanical Systems: HVAC - units to be placed an side of puma near the courtyard and will be shielded with evergreen landscape plants. Roof Penetrations - as required. Parking Area: - Existing ribbon driveway from Cumberland Street provides access to the garage parking -Driveway and parking area to be smooth concrete - Parking area to include wood privacy fence on north edges. Porches Columns - Brick and wood Porch surface - concrete Porch ceiling -wood, head-board Rails - Brick Steps - concrete Public right -of -way improvements: Not applicable to this project. Retainer Walls Not applicable to this project. Roof: Shingles - Composition Architectural Style (asphalt) Eave Trim - wood Satellite Dishes: Not applicable. Screens: Not applicable to this project. Shutters: Not applicable to this project. Tina & Andrew Boyd, 1715 Magnolia Avenue, LNe Rock, Arkansas, 72202, 501-804-4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 35 BOYD HOME, Inc- LETTER OF APPLICATION Sidewalks: To extend from front steps to existing sidewalk —at least 24" width. Steps to be similar to existing concrete steps on Rock Street. The existing steps can not be worked into the landscape and layout without creating access problems, and are nut safe for future use. They will be removed with Commission approval. Siding: Wood where needed. Signs: Request a small business sign for Boyd Homes, Inc similar to Answerfone sign. To be located on the north side of front entry sidewalk. Skylights: Two skylights to be located in upstairs room at the rear of the house. Neither will be visible from Rock Street or Cumberland Street or from adiacent homes. Solar Collectors: Yes, if approved. Request discussion on this issue. Staircases: Fire Escape stairs for the garage apartment to he located nn the north side. Stairs to be built of wood and painted to match other house trim. Stairs will not be visible from Rock Street (and probably not from Cumberland Street ). Stairs will end at corner of garage and will be minimally visible from the access/utility easement. Stairs will be built in the 5' sethack. Steps: Steps to be similar to existing concrete steps on Rock Street. The existing steps can not be worked into the landscape and layout without creating access problems, and are not safe for future use. They will be removed with Commission approval. Windows: Double-hung or casement, wood with vinyl cladding. Tina & Andrew Boyd, 1715 Magnolia Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202, 501-804-4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 36 RECEIVED AUG 21 2007 BY: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1 �Q application Date: 1. Date of Public Bearing: lPday of 2002at '67'" p.tn. ? Address of Property: 101i 3. Legal Description of Property: S� ee- IR-- SAD i. Owner's Acent: (Phone /Fax/E -mail) 6. Project Description (dlliWinnipaps may be added): j ,prt� �i�l ( it ut%. 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements:, q t i M." 8. Zoning Classification: "�—IA & 0 Is the proposed chaxige a permitted use? SS No 9. Signature of Owner orAgctni (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). 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, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action []Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions []See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 37 Page 1 of 1 Minyard, Brian From: BoydHomeslnc [boydhomesinc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 3:53 PM To: conner @answerfone com Cc: James, Donna; Minyard, Brian Subject: (We are revising) Tina and Andrew Boyd - 614 Rock Street Mr. Limerick: (I have sent a similar letter to Mr. Dennis) I am responding In your letter of concern about our application for 614 Rock Street. I certainly understand your concerns and want to assure you that we have the best interests of the neighborhood at heart. If you had called me, I would have gladly discussed this with you and made changes as needed. I think some of Ibis has been a miscommunication and some of it is corrected by changing the application. We live here and will continue to be neighbors. We also want to save every tree that we can on the lot. In response to your and Mr. Dennis' concerns, I have changed the application. Please see the attached site plan and letter of application which I have provided to Donna James, City of Little Rock, Planning and Development. I have addressed all of your concerns except one, which is that the house will be 1.5 stories. I have not changed the house plan because I believe this plan to be more in keeping with the area and will blend into the surrounding houses in appearance. It also has rnuch more street appeal than the original house that I had planned for this lot. Specific to your concerns 1. Our front porch will start almost exactly where the porch for Answerfone starts. The II'setback was approved in 7805. We are not proposing a change to the building setback. This should be acceptable. 2. We have changed the north side of the house to be 7' front the property line, instead of at the 5' setback. The side setbacks were also approved in 2005. We are not proposing a change to those setbacks. 3. We are the same distance from your Answerfone structure now as In the original plan. The addition of fencing has significantly cut down on foot traffic and crime in the area. You and I have, discussed this and you agreed that the fencing has helped. 4. The original house plan called for 2900 square feet on one floor. The new house plan is ~3000 square feet with 1.5 stories and is much more in keeping with the other homes an the block. The footprint of the new home is SMALLER than the footprint of the original planned home. Answerfone is the only one story home on the block. All of the other homes on the block are two stories and closer to 3000 square feet. The home should not overwhelm the other homes an the block and is similar in size and shape. I called W. Rausch last fall to give me guidettnes to use during construction. I will use every guideline that he provided and will do everything possible keep these trees alive. I have every interest in doing so. I have already had the trees trimmed per his specifications, and will continue to monitor them throughout construction. Andrew, Isabella and I will he living in this house for years to come, and we want to be good neighbors. Tha appraised value of the homes substantiates that our development has added signifiamtt value to the area. The development's landscape shows that we are committed to providing the neighbors with a beautiful properly to view. We have rot requested setbacks from those approved in 2005, and we have addressed most of your concerns. It is my hope that you will contact Donna James and withdraw your concerns, as we have filed an amended plot plan. All we are really asking for is the pool. Sincerely, Tina Boyd Boyd Homes, Inc President and Home-owner Cc: Brian Minyord, Randy Dennis, Donna James Please call me if you have any additional questions (501- 804-4349) 9/10/2007 Revised Cover Letter from Applicant 39 Revised Partial survey/site plan 40 Other Matters: a Commissioner Wiedower asked for and suggested a spreadsheet of items passed by the Commission to look at what has been done in the past for precedence. It was explained that the Commission does not set precedence. b Enforcement items were discussed. On 7th Street just east of the Lincoln house, the house has been painted. Mr. Minyard restated the guidelines that state of to waterproof a building; it is permissible to paint the brick. He presented the spreadsheet of enforcement issues. A short run through of the items were discussed. It was discussed to send certified letters in plain envelopes. c Citizen Communication. None. VI. Adjournment The meeting ended at 8:13 p.m. Attest: _ I ?-- 14 -0 Chair Date 41