The URL can be used to link to this page

HDC_05 08 2006DEPARTMENT 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 MINUTE RECORD Monday, May 8, 2006, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Marshall Peters Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Job Serebrov Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Tony Bozynski Citizens Present: Bill Reddig Karen Butler Reddig John Jarrard Freida N. Tirado Wali Caradine III. Approval of Minutes a. March 13, 2006 Commissioner Marshall Peters made a motion to approve as corrected, and Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. b. April 10, 2006 Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve as submitted, and Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded. The motion was approved with a 1 of 32 vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention. Commissioner Job Serebrov abstained because he was absent at the meeting. IV. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. None Debra Weldon stated that both applications for a new Certificate of Appropriateness have met the notice requirement. V. New Certificates of Appropriateness 2 of 32 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. 1. DATE: May 8, 2006 APPLICANT: Wali Caradine ADDRESS: 1101 Cumberland Street COA Replace signage on building to reflect new business and new door on REQUEST: north side. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1101 Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is Lot 1, Block 46, Original to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is listed as a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1988 survey shows it as a non - contributing structure. This application is to replace signage on building to reflect new business. The building is currently the subject of a Conditional Use Permit to be heard on Location of Project May 25, 2006 at the Planning Commission. The proposed use is an Adult Daycare to serve elderly clients within the city and surrounding area. The application also includes a new door on the north side. It is approximately in the middle of the inset area. The door will match the other doors on the structure. It will replace one of the windows on that side. The sign change and the door addition are the changes to the exterior of the structure. The signage on the north and west side of the buildings above the blue awnings will be changed. The text "Summerset Adult Day Care Center" will reflect the new business. 3 of 32 There will be signage at street level on the glass in vinyl letters applied to the glass. Any signage on the widows at street level will be considered a sign if the word "SummerSet" is included. Hours of operation, services provided, payment options, etc do not constitute a sign. Currently, the sign "Fashion Park Cleaners" has text that is approximately 24 inches tall (the "F" and the "P "). The proposed signage has letters that are 24 ", 20" and 6" tall. West facade in 1978 West facade in 1988 Existing Building from NW Existing front of building PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On June 9, 1988, a COA was approved and issued to Brookshur Banks of Fashion Parks Cleaners for rebuilding the burned building. On September 21, 1987, a COA was approved and issued Fashion Park Cleaners for a fagade treatment. ANALYSIS: The current signage has wall signs facing Cumberland and 11th Street with the text "Fashion Park Cleaners" in two lines of text. The words are out of "EIFS" and the wall is also of "EIFS ". The proposed letters on the wall signs "will be out of plastic and painted blue with a color and finish to compliment the matte blue color and finish of the ceramic tile blocks that accent the building." The new signage will occupy the same space as 4 of 32 the current signs. The diamonds on each side of the text will not be removed and the signage will fit between those diamonds. When the "EIFS" letters are removed from the building, the fagade of the building will need to be repaired to make the fagade smooth and the texture and color of the building the same as the surrounding area. Proposed West signage Proposed North signage SUMMERSET ADULT DAY CARE CENTER Proposed Text WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Sign Guidelines states fifteen items relating to the design of signs, of which eleven items are relevant to this case: B. Signs that flash or rotate should not be used. Commission. Signs should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially-used residential building. E. Signs that are attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between posts, flush mounted signs on building wall, small projecting signs, or part of an awning. 5 of 32 G. Signs of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or commercially —used residential buildings. H. Signs should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with remote sources. I. Signs should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood. J. Signs should utilize logos or symbols for businesses. L. Signs should use no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate with the building colors. M. Signs should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60 percent of the total sign area. O. Signs should otherwise comply with the Little Rock Sign Ordinance provisions. The proposed signage conforms to the above criteria with the exception of part "I" and "M ". The letters are to be made of plastic and painted matte blue. No mention of how the signs will be illuminated has been made. The letters are approximately the same size as the previous letters. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 6 of 32 April 7, 2006 1 RECEWED APR 0 7 2006 F3Y: Brian Minyard, Planner II LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: REQUEST OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1101 CUBMERLAND STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Dear Mr. Minyard: We, hereby, submit to the Little Rock Historic District Commission for your review and approval of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 1101 Cumberland Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent is to use an existing building for an Adult Daycare Center and Offices to serve adult elderly clients within the City of Little Rock, as well as, the surrounding communities. The proposed development will consist of a 6000 square feet Adult Daycare Center and 1500 square feet of general office space. The exterior of the property will not change except for replacing the signage on the north and west side of the building above the blue canvas awnings, in the same location as the previous signage to depict the name of the businesses. Signage at the street level will be added to provide general information such as the name of the business(s), street address, and hours of operations. Lettering above the awnings will be surface mounted and all other lettering will be vinyl applied to glass windows and doors. Should you have any questions regarding any issues related to this application, please contact me at 501- 372 -4199. Sincerely, CARADINE & COMPANY ARCHITECTURE Wali Caradine, AIA, Architect/Owner WC:ddn 2200 SOUTH MAIN STREET • LITTLE ROCK. AR 7220-1530 • OFFICE (501) 372 -4199 • FAX(501)372-2261 Cover letter from applicant 7 of 32 RECEIVED APR 07 2006 BY: 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 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: April 7, 2006 I : Date of Public Hearing: 8 day of _ May 2006 at 5 :00 p.m. 2. Address of Property: 1101 Cumberland Street 3. Legal Description of Property: Lot 1 Bloc 46 Ori final Cit f Little Rock Pulaski Coup sas 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): Wall Caradine 1001 Cumberland Street Little Rock Arkansas 72202 5. Owner's Agent:-5A me hone/Fax/E- mail):501- 372-41 15 1- 372 -2261 / wcaradin t-woodscaradine.carn 6. Project Description (additional Pages may be added): See attached additional information 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: $2,400.00 Zoning Classification: R4 . Is the proposed change a permitted use? Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent; (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 8 of 32 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining all permits: building and signs 2. Submittal to Staff of any lighting fixtures to illuminate sign. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: May 8 2006 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation. He noted that the item was also on the Planning Commission agenda for a Conditional Use Permit. He did state the differences to the signs and the guidelines as stated. He presented the staff recommendation and added a further condition to repair the facade after the old sign is removed. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked if this was a burned out building. Wali Caradine said that it had burned and was rebuilt in 1988. Mr. Caradine, the applicant and owner of the building and business, made a presentation to the commission. The lettering on the sign will be similar in scale and scope to the existing signage. There will not be any lighting on the lettering, there is none now and do not plan to add any. The blue tiles on the building are embedded into the EFTS. Plastic letters will be used. The building was renovated in 1988 and the building is over fifty years old. Mr. Caradine passed around a sketch that showed the elevations of the building that included trees in the sidewalk. Commissioner Peters asked if they were putting trees in the sidewalk. Mr. Caradine responded that there is a main water line in the sidewalk that will prohibit planting trees in the ground. He continued that he would use planters instead. He continued that he was in front of the Planning Commission for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) and that some of the items presented here are duplications of the other application. There was discussion about amending his application to include the planters and Chairman Carolyn Newbern stated that the applicant must state for the record that he was amending his application concerning the planters. Commissioner Job Serebrov asked Debra Weldon if the application could be amended to have staff give final approval of the planters. Ms. Weldon answered yes that it can. Chairman Newbern restated to the applicant that he can amend his application to include the planters and that staff would have final approval of the planters. Commissioner Peters reiterated to the applicant that he needed to amend his application today so that it did not postpone his application for one -month time. The applicant did so. He was offered planters that had sat at the Innerplan building and at one time had sat in the Metrocentre Mall had wanted to use them. He said that they 9 of 32 were exposed aggregate concrete planters and that they were more theft proof. Planters would soften the appearance of the building. Commissioner Walls asked if he would make them similar in color to the building. When asked, Mr. Caradine stated that there would be two planters on Cumberland Street and one the west corner of 11th Street. He continued that there are lots of trees on Cumberland that these could continue that line of plants. Mr. Minyard asked what kinds of trees were going to be planted. Public Works has provided a list of trees that are suitable for the planters and that crepe myrtles are not on that list. Chairman Newbern was surprised at that and offered that the Pulaski County Master Gardeners also has list of plants for planters based on shade, sun, heat, etc. Commissioner Serebrov asked for clarification on the planters and if the applicant had indeed amended his application. Ms. Weldon asked that applicant if he had amended his application. Mr. Caradine stated yes. Staff amended their recommendation to state: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining all permits: building and signs (Strike comment on lighting of signs. The applicant has stated that there would be no lighting.) 2. Repair facade of building after letters are removed. 3. Staff approval of planters, plants and placement. 4. Franchise permit and approval from Public Works. Wali Caradine stated for the record that he had amended his application concerning the planters. Chairman Newbern asked and there were no citizens present to speak for or against the application. A motion was made by Commissioner Walls to approve the application as amended with staff recommendations as amended. Commissioner Serebrov seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Following the vote was general discussion about the project, the opening date and that the site was a brownfield. 10 of 32 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. 2. DATE: May 8, 2006 APPLICANT: Karen Butler Reddig ADDRESS: 1301 Cumberland Street COA Amend Certificate of Appropriateness per letter dated March 6, 2006 REQUEST: from City Attorney's office. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1301 Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is Lot 1 Block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 survey does not list a particular style for this building but claims there have been major renovations. It is listed as a Non - Contributing Structure. The 1978 survey does not list this structure at all. The applicant has submitted this application to Amend the Certificate of Appropriateness in response to a letter from City Attorney's office dated March 6, 2006. Listed below are nine items that were presented in the letter. Location of Project The presence of a detached accessory dwelling with kitchen facilities will require approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission. (A "Conditional Use Permit (CUP)" is the appropriate application for Accessory dwelling units. The presence of a kitchen in this structure makes this an additional dwelling unit. If there is not a kitchen facility in the structure, the applicant will go to the Board of Adjustment for a "One and Two Family Zoning Variance ". Both applications will address the variances associated with this application.) The Property is zoned R4 -A which has as permitted uses of Single Family and Two - Family residences. The definition of a Two-Family residence is two (2) 11 of 32 attached dwelling units one (1) lot, each occupied by not more than one (1) family. The CUP will also consider, among other things, the location and height of the cinder block wall along 13th Street, the second floor porch located to the north of the Carriage House building, percent of rear lot coverage and percent of total lot coverage. The next filing deadline for the CUP application will be May 30, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 12, 2004, a COA was approved and issued to Karen Butler Miller to "Construct New Carriage House and Courtyard, i.e. Secondary Structure; Demolition Of Existing Garage." The conditions placed on that COA were as follows: 1.) Recommendation that the roof pitch of the new structure match that of the existing structure. 2.) The window details and Hardiplank / Harditrim siding details be submitted to staff and approved by the Commission. On July 7, 2004, the owner submitted. materials to the Commission as per the approved motion of February 12, 2004. While different aspects of the project were discussed the motion was made only to approve the siding materials. The Commission and applicants have received complete copies of the minutes 1988 Survey photo of west facade of house as approved for these two meetings. ANALYSIS: The application as filed is to seek approval for improvements made to the property after the original COA was issued on February 12, 2004. Staff, at the time, recommended approval for a Carriage House that sat on the northern property line. Note: Staff, unless otherwise specified, took all current photos for this report on April 27, 2006 from the public right of way. Listed below are nine items that were presented in the letter from the City Attorney's office. 1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding. 2. Relocation of the approved driveway. 3. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west fagade of the accessory structure. 4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Current front facade of house. 12 of 32 5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north fagade of the accessory building and the wall. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. Point by point analysis of the nine items as stated in the letter. 1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding. New Construction of outbuildings and additions specifically require approval through the COA process. The original COA had the building sited closer to the corner of the cinder block wall than it is now. The location of the building had to be moved to the present location to adhere to the Zoning Ordinance Setback requirements of 15' off of the north street side property line. The Zoning ordinance regulations supercede the Historic District Ordinance in matters of building locations. The HDC Guidelines address siting issues, but do not place numerical any setback. Photo showing increased setback of building to the south and relocated driveway. regulations on the number of feet required in 2. Relocation of the approved driveway. Public right-of-way improvements, in this case, driveways that are built in the right-of- way, specifically require approval through the COA process. The driveway to the garage doors had to be moved to relate to the garage doors. See above discussion of the relocation of the building. 3. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west fagade of the accessory structure. Porches (columns, cornices, railing, flooring detailing) specifically require approval through the COA process. While the second story porch roof was discussed on July 7, 2004, it was not shown on the original documentation and was not included in the motion that was approved that evening. This porch was not shown on the original submittals; therefore, it was an addition to the project that was not included in a motion granting approval. The guidelines state on the subject of Porches: on front facades should not be enclosed; should have wood steps with risers, not brick or concrete, for buildings with wood floor porches; should have wood tongue and groove flooring 13 of 32 running perpendicular to the fagade; and should not have brick floors or steps. The porch floor is wooden, but it is unknown as to what size material the floor is made of, what orientation it is, or if it is tongue and groove. The steps are missing the risers. The porch roof is made of corrugated aluminum with exposed rafters. Photo showing second floor porch covering. Photo showing composition of wood porch floor and wood steps. 4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Ceiling fans, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval through the COA process. While the second story porch roof was discussed on July 7, 2004, it was not shown on the original documentation and was not included in the motion that was approved that evening. This ceiling fan attached to the porch was not shown on the original submittals; therefore, it was an addition to the project that was not included in the motion granting approval. The Guidelines state that the mounting of fans on exterior ceilings should be avoided if visible from the street. Photo showing ceiling fan as viewed from the right Photos showing security light on north fagade and of way. satellite dish. 5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. 14 of 32 Outdoor Security lighting, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval through the COA process. The guidelines state that 1) lighting for security, such as flood lights, should be mounted on secondary and rear facades and 2) lighting fixtures introduced to the exterior of a structure should be from the period of the structure, or new if simple in design, based on traditional designs of the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries and mounted on porch ceilings or adjacent to entrances. These lighting fixtures are not compatible with a historic home. Fixtures are available with motion sensitive activation that could be compatible with the guidelines. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. In the public hearing of 2-12-04, Mr. Reddig stated, "that the cinder block portion of the wall would be five feet and the wrought iron would be three feet. In turn the wall is only solid for five feet and you can look through the wrought iron." This wall was also described graphically without the cinder blocks being installed over the door header. The guidelines state the following about fences that are relevant to this case: 1) Fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards; generally no taller than six feet; set back from the front facade (wall plane) of the structure at least half-way from the front to back walls; of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox); stained or painted to blend with the structure; and of a design compatible with the structure. 2) Fences of freestanding brick, stone, or concrete walls are not appropriate. The northern wall was installed with the height ranging from ninety inches (7'-6 ") on the east end to seventy four inches (6'- 2") on the west end with a height of one hundred fourteen inches (9'-6 ") over the door. The Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment will review any Zoning ordinance variance. The height of the wall is measured from the lowest point: i.e. if you fill in the courtyard, you must measure from the outside original grade. This wall is over six feet tall at all points. The south wall is eighty -two inches (6'- Photo showing height of north wall at door. 10 ") on the eastern end and seventy -four (6-2 ") on the western end. This wall is over six feet tall at all points. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum fence /wall height of six (6) feet along the interior property line. 15 of 32 Photo showing height of north wall at west end. Photo showing height of north wall at east end. The location of the northern wall as described in the original application was in the same plane as the northern facade of the house. The wall as built is approximately 28" north of the north wall and on the five -foot setback line. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north facade of the accessory building and the wall. Decks and Porches (columns, cornices, railing, flooring detailing) specifically require approval through the COA process. This porch was not shown to the Commission as it was added to the project after learning of the increased setback from the side property line. This knowledge was gained though the process of obtaining the Building Permit that was pulled on October 4, 2004. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission will review the porch and stairway at a later hearing for setback issues. The Guidelines state that decks: 1) should be located on the rear and be screened from street view with fencing and or native evergreen plants and shrubs where visible. 2) should be stained or painted to match or blend with the house if visible from street view. 3) should have square wood balusters set no more that three inches apart if deck is visible from the street and 4) should be kept to a minimum and subordinate to house and yard in size and scale. This deck is located on the rear of the property but is very visible from the street. Evergreen trees have been planted to screen the deck but the years that it will take to screen the deck is unknown. The deck appears to be unstained and unpainted. It has iron railings instead of wood railings and balusters. 16 of 32 Photo showing deck from the northeast. Photo showing deck from the northwest. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. Landscaping does not require a COA as listed in the guidelines, but as a part of the COA process the applicant stated that the ivy would be planted. Therefore, the planting of the ivy had become part of the application. Ivy was not planted in a timely manner. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. The iron fencing part of the wall was totally omitted from the installation of the wall. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: This item has been a topic of the Interstate 30 Task Force Meetings that are held once a month with the Mayor, City Manager, and various department heads together with members of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and citizens of the MacArthur Park Historic District. The public reaction to this application has not been favorable. It has been on their agenda since January 2006. Courtyard interior view to east. Courtyard interior view to north. 17 of 32 More owner supplied photos: Courtyard interior view to south. Courtyard interior view to west. 18 of 32 DEPARTMNET OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCKI 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 Apptication Date: 4-11-06 1. Date of Public Hearing:.... day of 200 _._.at p.m. 2. Address of Property: ) 3�)) C U fK B _( 57- _ Ld 7-i'L,4,, o g E A 5. Owner's Agent: (PhondFwdF -mail) 8. Zoning Classification: Is to to o change a p ermit ed use? Yes coj 9. Signature of Owner or Agent• i. (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 19 of 32 OFFICE OF TEE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Debra K Wc1don Telephone (501) 371-4527 Deputy City Attorney Telecopier (501) 371-467'5 March 6, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ( #7099 3400 0006 8452 5783) Bill Rettig and Karen Butler Miller 1301 Cumberland Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Enforcement Proceedings —1301 Cumberland Failure to Amend Certificate of Appropriateness Dear Mr. Retting and Ms. Miller, On February 13, 2006, the Little Rock Historic District Commission submitted a formal request for enforcement action regarding your property at 1301 Cumberland. Our records indicate that a Certificate of Appropriateness ( "COA ") was approved for this property, but that several modifications to the approved plans were implemented without obtaining an amended COA from the Historic District Commission. These changes include: 1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding (increased setback). 2. Relocation of the approved driveway. 3. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west facade of the accessory structure. 4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. 5. Instalatior_ of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the original structure. 6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and as described at the public hearing. 7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the north facade of the accessory building and the wall. 8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall. 9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side. Letter from Attorney page I of 3 20 of 32 See also the following images; Examples of COA Violations Examples of COA Violations Upon investigation, Planning and Development staff noted that the porch constructed north of the accessory building is in violation of existing zoning. This porch was not permitted and cannot be permitted by the Department of Planning and Development without Board of Adjustment approval of a zoning variance. This letter is submitted to place you on formal -notice that the aboveAescrbed deviations from your approved COA application are in violation of state law and local zoning ordinances. To bring your property into compliance, you must either alter the structures to comply with the approved COA or obtain a variance from the Board of Letter from Attorney page 2 of 3 21 of 32 Zoning Adjustment and an amended COA from the Little Rock Historic District Commission. Please attend the March 13, 2006 meeting of the Historic District Commission to. show cause why enforcement proceedings should not be initiated against you in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The meeting is at 5 :00 pm in the Sister Cities Conference Room, on the second floor of City Hall, 500 West Markham. Failure to appear before the Historic District Commission on March 13 may result in the initiation of legal proceedings against you. Sincerely, Thomas M Carpenter City Attorney Debra K. Weldon Deputy City Attorney TMC:DKW:dw Cc: Historic District Commission Members Tony BozynsK Planning and Development Director Letter from Attorney page 3 of 3 22 of 32 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation forthcoming at hearing. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: May 8, 2006 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He stated that the item will be required to go to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling. The recommendation was a handout available to all at the meeting and Commissioners and the applicants were given one. He spoke to each item in the Staff report and covered the guideline recommendations for each. He read the Staff recommendation to the Commission, applicant, and public. The recommendation is as follows: Staff recommends approval of the following items as installed: A. Footprint relocation of the Carriage House. B. Relocation of the driveway. C. Deletion of iron fencing on top of cinder block wall. D. Two light fixtures on the north wall of the second floor of the Carriage House. E. Satellite dish as installed. Staff recommends approval of the following items with modifications to the existing structures based on the guidelines: F. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Fan is to be removed and replaced with one of a more simple design of motor housing and blades. G. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north facade of the original structure. Lighting is to be replaced with a motion sensitive activation that is compatible with the guidelines. Applicant is to submit lighting fixture to the commission at the June 2006 hearing prior to installation. Staff recommends approval of the security light on the south side of the house as installed. H. The cinder block wall on the south side shall be lowered to a level under six feet in height when measured from the outside of the wall (the view from neighboring properties). The cinder block wall on the north side shall be lowered to a level under six feet in height when measured from the outside of the wall (the street view side) for the length of the wall within the rear yard setback of 25 feet. J. Remove or add cinder blocks around the top of the doorway on the north side of the property to simplify design as shown in photo to the right. Make design symmetrical. Applicant is to submit plan for wall modifications to the commission at the June 2006 hearing prior to installation. 23 of 32 Wall suggestion at door. K. Deck on north fagade of Carriage House. Remove iron railing and replace with wooden railings as specified by the guidelines. Add risers to steps. L. Planting of ivy on north wall. Install ivy along the entirety of the wall with plants that have runners of at least 24 ". Mr. Minyard concluded his presentation with the fact that Staff referred all of it's recommendations back to the guidelines so that the project could be more compatible with the district. He asked if there were questions of the commission for Staff. Chairman Carolyn Newbern made a comment on Item "F" Fans about the placement and height of the fan. Mr. Minyard commented that the slope and height of the roof, as well as the needed clearance would probably take care of the issue of it being as close to the ceiling as possible. Chairman Newbern made a comment concerning the ivy placement, Item "L", about spacing. He stated that the Commission could add that if they wished. Commissioner Marshall Peters and Chairman Newbern discussed whether the spacing of the plants should be 8" on center or 16 ". Commissioner Peters stated that they should have been planted in 2004. Chairman Newbern sated that they should be planted 8 -10 inches apart. Chairman Newbern commented on Item "J" over the door with the fence being too tall — over 6 feet tall. Mr. Minyard stated that the idea was to make the project more compatible with the house and the district. Commissioner Peters had a question about the brick around the door and that no one has that type of door in the district. Chairman Newbern stated that it could be discussed with the applicant later in the hearing. The applicants made their presentation to the Commission. Karen Butler Reddig stated that evergreen trees had been planted instead of the ivy and that they will grow three feet per year. She stated the variety is "Green Giant ". Mr. Minyard stated that there is a photo on page seven of the Staff report that shows the trees. Ms. Reddig stated "that the ivy had been planted on part of the wall but was not growing very much." Commissioner Peters asked if Staff could read the bottom of the application concerning changes. Mr. Minyard told Commissioner Peters that the applicant was to make their presentation now and that we could come back to that. Bill Reddig stated that the applicants would decide if the ivy was installed and it would be put in when finished. He commented that they had been working on their courtyard and have not done it as to now. He commented that the idea that the ivy should have been planted in 2004 was ludicrous and that there was no deadline on construction. He continued that they were doing the work themselves. 24 of 32 Mr. Reddig continued that the ceiling fan is simple in design and small in size. He continued about the slope of the roof and that it was as close to the ceiling of the porch as possible with the minimal size rod possible. It has wicker style blades. He added that he was not going to change the fan. Mr. Reddig then spoke of the security lights and said that they were installed before the application for a COA. They were installed because of a burglary because of lack of lighting. He spoke of the Highway Department not maintaining the streetlights on the opposite corner. They are on a photocell not a motion detector. They operate from dusk till dawn. Ms. Reddig added that the light fixtures were chosen because they were simple in design and white in color. Mr. Reddig continued that they were not going to change them to motion sensor lights and spoke of safety concerns for uneven sidewalks and other safety concerns. He stated that they were going to keep those lights. There was a discussion as to where the lights were and which photo in the staff report shows the lights. Mr. Reddig spoke of the cinder block wall. He said that it had two purposes. The interior of the courtyard is level — it acts as a retaining wall and a privacy wall. He mentioned that during the building permit process that he checked with Dave McClymont, Rex Lyons and Darrell Holladay and they stated that walls could be six feet in height. Chairman Newbern asked for clarification who these staff people were. Tony Bozynski stated that Mr. McClymont and Mr. Lyons were in the Building Codes staff and Mr. Holladay was in the Zoning enforcement section. Mr. Minyard stated that Mr. McClymont and Mr. Lyons work on commercial buildings. Commissioner Job Serebrov stated that the guidelines are separate from the building codes and that the guidelines are interpreted by a separate body. Mr. Reddig continued that Darrell Holladay wanted only a site plan, not an elevation to obtain a building permit. The wall is six feet tall on the inside, and that they plan to keep it. Mrs. Redding commented that the iron on the top was deleted for cost issues and the deletion of the iron was shown on the drawing. At that time, the applicant handed a copy of the drawing to the Debra Weldon and she passed it on to the commissioners to view. The drawing was an 11 x 17 drawing showing four elevations of the property and handwritten by the applicant in the lower right hand corner it stated, "Presented July 7, 2004." Mr. Minyard wrote on the drawing at the meeting that it was received May 8, 2006. (Later it was stamped received for legibility.) Chairman Newbern noted for the record that the drawing does show the iron railing was deleted. A discussion followed concerning the drawing that the applicant believes this was the drawing shown at the July 2004 meeting. Mr. Reddig continued his presentation about the cinder block wall surrounding the door. He said the block was added to support the weight of the door and preserve the block. He was not sure if they would add block or subtract block. He commented on the state 25 of 32 of other fences in the neighborhood that are in a state of disrepair. Mr. Reddig asked Mrs. Reddig what she felt about the wall. She stated that they "were not going to change anything." Mrs. Reddig said that they could not afford a wood railing and put up the iron railing instead. She continued that the steps were not finished and that risers would be added. Chairman Newbern asked if there were any more comments that the applicant wanted to make. The applicants were silent. Chairman Newbern asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners to the applicants. Commissioner Serebrov commented that the Commission would tell the applicant what stays and what goes, not the applicant telling the Commission. Mr. Reddig stated that he was ready to go to court. Chairman Newbern asked if there were any citizens in the room to speak on this item. There were not any citizens present to speak for or against the item. Commissioner Wesley Walls stated that "the height of the wall does not personally bother him. It is a six -foot tall privacy fence and that the guidelines state generally six feet in height. Taking one block off of the top does not gain a lot." He continued that the original approval was for a block and iron fence and that the issue was that things were changed without getting approval. He continued that the intent was to plant ivy and cover the wall — ivy covering the wall would make it more appropriate. Commissioner Walls continued that while he understood that the blocks over the door were placed there for stability of the door and wall, he concurred with Staff the zigzag over the door was out of character with the neighborhood. He stated that he valued the investment of the applicants in the neighborhood. He stated that appropriate is the term for the HDC and it would be appropriate to meet partway on these items. Mr. Reddig stated that they would add blocks. Commissioner Serebrov stated that he did not have a problem with the fan but tends to agree on the wall. Chairman Newbern reiterated the fact that the materials of the wall were approved because of the unique circumstances of the site, and that the block wall would block more of the freeway noise and provided for more security on the site and that the ivy would visually soften the wall. She stated that that was taken into account when the original vote was taken. Chairman Newbern added that in the light of Commissioner Walls' comment, she read the following clause at the bottom of the application that deals with changes to the COA after it is approved. The exact wording is "Should there be changes (design, materials, 26 of 32 size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances, or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or Staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or polices rests with the applicant, owner or agent." She continued that why the applicant was in front of the Commission now was the changes that had taken place without approval of the Commission. Commissioner Walls had a question about the lighting as to whether it was a guideline issue or if Staff had received complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Minyard stated that it was the design of the fixture that Staff was concerned about. He continued that if it was a dusk-to-dawn photocell or a motion-activated light was not a concern to Staff, it was the design of the fixture. Ms. Reddig spoke of other neighbors having security lights and explained why the streetlight does not work that is on the corner opposite her property. Mr. Reddig added that this was not a unique fixture in the neighborhood. Chairman Newbern said that she has trouble with the fact that Entergy not having a street light on that corner and can sympathize with them on that. Mr. Reddig spoke of the technical issues of replacing the wiring for that streetlight and that it was too costly. Tony Bozynski, Staff, stated that they could check into that issue. Ms. Reddig said that they put the lights up after the burglary and the police suggested that they put the lights up. She also continued that others have those types of lights on their front porch when theirs are on the' side facades. Chairman Newbern stated that some others may be out of compliance or may have been grandfathered in. Commissioner Serebrov asked the applicant if they wished to amend their application concerning the trees and ivy (Item "U). Ms. Reddig amended her application to state that they wished to have the trees east of the courtyard door and ivy to the west of the door instead of ivy all along the entire wall. Commissioner Walls asked where they got the door. Ms. Reddig said that the door came off of the original garage. Commissioner Walls stated in deference to the miscommunication on this project, that the commission should consider what is appropriate even with the difference of opinions. He would like to meet them halfway. He feels that Item "J" (the modification of the wall over the doorway) is important but is unsure on Item "K" (the railing on the deck). He mentioned that there was iron railing on the front of the house. Ms. Reddig noted that there was iron on the front of the house and that the new iron closely matches the iron on the front. Chairman Newbern stated that she thought the railing was slightly different on the front and rear of the house. Mr. Reddig said that it was slightly different in that the old railing is made of steel and the new is a pot metal product. Ms. Reddig commented that she thought that maybe switching the iron railing from on top of the wall to on the porch railing would be a wash. 27 of 32 Commissioner Walls stated that their house was unique in the district. He continued that the ceiling fan was out of character and concurred with staff on that item. Chairman Newbern asked if Commissioner Walls had a suggestion on the type of fan that would be appropriate. Commissioner Walls suggested a simple type blade. Commissioner Serebrov said that he was not concerned over the ceiling fan. Commissioner Walls again stated the modification over the door was significant and added that he wanted to hear from the applicant. Commissioner Serebrov stated the modification over the door and the planting of the ivy bothered him. He commented that the applicants stating "We are not going to, We are not going to, was annoying. He stated that the commission was here to discuss and reach conclusion." Mr. Reddig stated that he was bothered by reading emails that other people in the neighborhood has referred to his house as trash. Mr. Reddig said that he had the paper work ready. Mr. Minyard informed the Commission on the meetings of the I-30 Task Force, its meeting times, and items of discussion, which included 1301 Cumberland. He referenced an email that went to the Mayor that asked for this property be placed on the agenda. He continued that the peoples concerns at the meeting was if the guidelines had been followed, if a COA had been given, etc. They are concerned if it was compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Newbern made a comment that the 1 -30 group was aware of the hearing and could have attended. Mr. Minyard stated that the time and place of this hearing was announced in the last I-30 meeting. Commissioner Serebrov stated that the Commission is charged to deal with the guidelines and the Commissioners are free to vote how they wish even if it conflicts with staff recommendations. He asked the applicants to not take a position on how they think the Commissioners feel on the issue. Chairman Newbern stated that the more people that come in front of the Commission, the more properties will be in compliance and congratulated the applicants for being trailblazers in the neighborhood. Mr. Reddig commented about publicity problems of the commission. Chairman Newbern concurred. Mr. Minyard stated that staff would amend their recommendation to include Item G, outdoor security lighting, to be included in the section of approval as installed. Chairman Newbern clarified that this was added to Items A-E in the Staff report. Commissioner Serebrov asked how the Commission was going to get a consensus. Ms. Weldon stated that a motion can be made and seconded, discussed and then 28 of 32 amended or withdrawn. Commissioner Walls clarified that the applicants amend the application for ivy west and trees east of the door on Item 'U'. Commissioner Serebrov suggested that someone make a motion so that it can be discussed. Commissioner Peters made a motion to approve the item as amended by the applicant with staff recommendations as amended. Commissioner Serebrov seconded. Commissioner Serebrov then stated that each item should be discussed one by one. Items A, B, C, D, E, and G had no discussion. It was also noted that no further discussion on Item "L" was needed. The discussion then moved to the ceiling fan, Item F. Commissioner Peters said that the blades were too obvious, too wide, and too modern. He suggested replacing the blades to a cleaner look with straight blades. Commissioner Serebrov said he did not have a problem with the fan. Commissioner Peters reminded him that this was a historic district. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked the blades to be replaced with more traditional blades of a brown color so that they would disappear. Chairman Newbern asked when the house was built. Mr. Reddig responded 1925. Chairman Newbern drew an outline of the fan blade that she thought would be more appropriate and held it up for everyone to see. She preferred a color that would blend in, and in this case, compatible is unobtrusive since it is visible from the street. Sketch of ceiling fan blade by Chairman The fan blades set a tone. Newbern. Commissioner Peters quoted the guidelines that state no ceiling fans. Chairman Newbern added that the ceiling fans were not in the original application and that they were added without the approval of the commission. There was a discussion about staff recommendation stating the fan to be replaced when the discussion of the commissioners was about replacing the blades. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff was changing it's recommendation to replace the first word in the second sentence ( "Fan ") with the word "Blades ". The end of that sentence "of motor housing and blades' would be removed from the recommendation. The next topic was the cinder block walls, Item "H ". Mr. Minyard answered Commissioner Serebrov's question of the actual wall height by referring him to the staff report and reported the heights to the Commission. Commissioner Walls stated that they were not bothersome to him and not substantially different. Commissioner Serebrov concurred. Commissioner Peters stated that he could go along with the two of them. Commission Tatum asked if the walls set precedence. The answer from Ms. Weldon was that they did not. Commissioner Walls said, "the guidelines stated generally no taller than six feet. If it were eight or nine feet, it would be different enough ". Chairman Newbern stated that she could go along with the height with the 29 of 32 interference of the interstate and that it was one block difference. She continued that she did not like it or love it, but could go along with it. She did feel strongly about other items. Item "J ", the item of modifying the cinder block wall around the door was discussed next. Commissioner Serebrov asked the applicant if they would be more comfortable adding or subtracting block. Mr. Reddig stated adding. Commissioner Walls mentioned the staff recommendations and said that it would be more simple in design and clean and did not have a preference if they added or subtracted block. Ms. Reddig said that they did it that way to transition over the door. Commissioner Peters stated that he would prefer that they remove it entirely because the wall is so commanding. A discussion followed about the solidity of the door with or without a frame or block over the top of the door. Chairman Newbern referred to the drawing submitted earlier that showed no blocks over the door. Commissioner Peters raised the point that hinges could be placed lower on the door and it still function. A discussion followed. Commissioner Serebrov concurred with the staff recommendations, and Commissioner Tatum and Commissioner Peters supported staff recommendations. Chairman Newbern added that the applicant will bring modifications to the wall to Staff to have their approval prior to modifications. Item "K ", the railing on the deck and the stair risers was the next item to be discussed. Mr. Reddig commented that the steps were not finished, another step was to be added, and risers would be installed on the steps. Commissioner Walls asked if the applicants had planned on painting the raw wood on the carriage house. Chairman Newbern asked if the applicants had planned on painting the infill brink on the north side of the main house. Ms. Reddig stated that eventually, the paint would be removed from the entirety of the house. She was reminded that removing paint from the structure would require a COA. The response was that they were not finished with the work. Commissioner Walls prefers the iron railing. Chairman Newbern asked if Staff could change its recommendation to reflect the change in the number of risers. Mr. Minyard stated that the motion or amended motion would take care of that issue. Chairman Newbern restated Commissioner Peters motion to approve the application as amended with staff recommendations as amended. A discussion followed on the wording of the motion. Commissioner Peters made a motion to rescind his motion. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve as submitted with Items "F" and "J" as revised by Staff, Item "K" to amend to add risers to all steps, and Item "L" to include the trees east of the door and ivy to the west of the door. The item was restated as the application as amended for Items "A-E" and "G" and with amended changes on Items "F ", "J ", "K ", and "L ". The motion was seconded by 30 of 32 Commissioner Serebrov. The item was approved with a final vote was 3 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. The no votes were from Commissioners Tatum and Peters. Chairman Newbern made a point that everyone should understand the fact that the underlying problem is to check if changes are made and that they have to be approved. The commission needs to get the word out to folks and try to promote conformity to the general guidelines. Mr. Minyard informed the applicants that they would need to file a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) with the Planning Staff by May 30, 2006 and explained the reason why. Tony Bozynski left the meeting at this time. VI. Other Matters a. Enforcement Issues 507 East 6th Street, Caroline Apartments. Mr. Minyard made a presentation that the item to be discussed was the fact that the enclosure was installed differently than approved by the commission. There are more vertical members in the doors and the locking mechanism is different. John Jarrard had handouts to the commission of the item as approved by the Commission and a photo of how it was installed. He continued that it was not their intention to change the enclosure. When it went to the contractor, he changed it to meet a code of 4 inch spacing that is not necessary on this type of structure. The contractor has been paid and is unwilling to change the door. The enclosure is very similar to what was approved and asked the committee for forgiveness. Commissioner Serebrov admitted that he called Staff on this item. A comment was made about the color of the iron and Mr. Minyard stated that it matched the wooden door behind it. A discussion was had about what kind of motion to make and Mr. Minyard suggested a motion to not enforce on this issue. Commissioner Peters made a motion to not enforce on this item because of the minor nature of the infraction and Commissioner Serebrov seconded. Commissioner Peters further clarified that the infractions were indeed minor, believes the innocence of the applicants, and knows of changes in staff at the apartments. Commissioner Serebrov stated that he just wanted an explanation of the changes. The motion to not enforce passes with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Peters wanted to add the property owner's names to the enforcement list. 31 of 32 1000 McGowan Street: Staff has sent certified letters to the owners stating that they must remove the lights or file a COA. Commissioner Peters requested one last letter from staff concerning enforcement item #4 on 7th street that advises that the City Attorney will be sending the next letter. 1419 Commerce Street. Staff noted no change. 420 East Ninth Street: The Commission asked to get police involved because of the drug use on the site. Commissioner Peters added that they had air conditioners in the windows. Commissioner Peters also asked the Staff to check into the trash dumpster at ST Edwards Church that is in the street. Mr. Minyard stated that he would check on the CUP on that. Mr. Minyard gave the Commission an update on the CLG grants. He also informed the Commission to mark on their calendar to go to the Board of Directors meeting on June 13 for the guideline presentation. VII. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Serebrov and seconded by Commissioner Walls. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50. p.m. Attest: Chair Date 32 of 32