/
     
HDC_11 11 2005DEPARTMENT 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 Friday, November 11, 2005, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call A Quorum was present being three (3) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Job Serebrov Kay Tatum Members Absent: Marshall Peters Wesley Walls City Attorney: Deborah Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Tony Bozynski II. Approval of Minutes a. October 6, 2005 Commissioner Tatum made a motion for approval of the minutes as submitted, Commissioner Serebrov seconded. The Minutes were approved 3 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. b. May 5, 2005 The minutes of September 1, 2005 will be presented at the next meeting. III. Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects There are no new items on the agenda: therefore this is non-applicable. IV. New Certificates of Appropriateness: 1 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 6, 2005 APPLICANT: Frieda Tirado ADDRESS: 504 East 6t" Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA Enclose a wrought iron enclosure on the south entrance. REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 504 East 6th Street. The property's legal description is "Part of Trapnall Block in Stevenson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas: described as: Beginning on the North line east of 6 "' Street at a point which is 260 feet West of the centerline of Sherman Street; run thence West on the said North line of East 6th Street a distance of 60 feet; then North at right angles 124 feet; thence East at right angles 60 feet; then South 124 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT a strip off the east side 1 1/2 feet wide." The building is a c 1920's The propety at 504 East 6th Street. Craftsman style apartment house and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style became the most common architectural style in America in the early part of the 20th century and often coupled with the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized by irregular plans with low- pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers. Windows are double hung-sash with six vertical lights in the top sash and a single light bottom sash. In many examples, rafter ends and knee braces are visible below. 2 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Two This building has been involved in previous COA applications which has resulted in the demolition of an accessory building, construction of a paved parking area, reconstruction of a porch overhang, removal of inappropriate window shutters, and the painting of the exterior. This application is to allow for the addition of an iron enclosure over the front entranceway of the building to provide for added security. ANALYSIS: The design guidelines list several items that are relevant to this case. Most notably are the door design guidelines. Historically the Design Guidelines have always viewed the primary facade as being the most important element of the structure. Presently the front entrance is set back in the building four feet and covered with a portico. The inner door has five vertical lights and a three light transom. The design guidelines have specific guidelines relating to the installation of security doors. stating that security doors "should not be located on the primary fagades" and should be "full -view, without ornate or decorative grill work." Additionally graphics indicate examples of acceptable and unacceptable security door designs. NO NO YES Storm and securily doors should not obscure or conccal the entrance. Excerpt from the Design Guidelines While this is not a security door there are commonalities. This iron enclosure obscures the front door and architectural features, as does a bad storm or security door. The applicant has indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be 5 feet wide by 9 feet tall. It will be divided into two "sections," one on the top (2 feet by 5 feet), which will have a half circle ornamental iron pattern, and the bottom (7 feet by 5 feet), which will have a vertical pattern of ornamental iron bars. These bars our 1/2 inch in diameter. The applicant has indicated that the door will be model # 13-155-3 and made by King Architectural Metals. The proposed iron design does not reflect any of the architectural features of the door or transoms. It is a totally foreign design element being introduced to a contributing 3 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Two structure. The round sunburst does not match the transom, the proposed iron gate is a double hung door that does not match the existing single door behind. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be located flush with the current entryway opening creating a non - weather resistant entranceway at the front entry. Craftsman construction styles on buildings of moderate means were based off of simplicity and typically did not feature separate or elaborate entryways. Since the iron enclosure will be located flush with the front facade, it will be visible from multiple angles on East 6th Street. The proposed iron enclosure will obscure the front door and entranceway. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application because it will obscure the entranceway, the front door, and is not in character with adjacent Craftsman apartment buildings. Existing front door. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Brian Minyard, HDC Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Marshall Peters stated. that he had a conflict of interest in this item and would recuse himself. John Jerrard, representing the applicant, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the main entrance for the complex is on the west side. The front door (the one facing south) enters into one apartment only. People stay there on stormy nights. The enclosure would prohibit sleeping and ringing of the doorbells. He continued to state that he wanted to make the design light and open. Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the materials. Mr. Jerrard stated that it was iron, with five inch spacing of the vertical bars. There were no persons there for public comment. 4 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Four There were no persons there for public comment. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she thought that the enclosure was not compatible. She asked if there were other enclosures. Mr. Jerrard answered that regular security doors would not solve the problem. The solution that they have proposed does not fit the definition of a security door. Commissioner Job Serebrov stated that there was a problem and that he could sympathize with the problem. Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded the position stated by Commissioner Serebrov. He was concerned that the design of the doors does not match the "Craftsman" building, but continued that the portico on the front was not a craftsman detail. He continued that this crosses the border from storm door to bars on windows. Commissioner Carolyn Newbern pointed to the graphics included in the agenda in the analysis section. She stated that they conflict with the design and asked where it was to be installed. Mr. Jerrard stated that it would be installed behind the columns six inches back from the front of the brick. Commissioner Walls asked where the door was in relation to the enclosure. Mr. Jerrard answered that the door sits back four and one half feet. Commissioner Newbern asked how wide the enclosure was. Mr.. Jerrard answered about five feet. Commissioner Walls asked if the door would be used. Mr. Jerrard commented that it would probably not. Commissioner Tatum asked if it had to be operable for fire code issues. Mr. Jerrard answered no. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an operable doorbell. Frida Tirado, owner of the project, interjected that the people will sleep and sit there. Commissioner Newbern asked if other options were explored, for example full view? Mr. Jerrard stated that they have not explored those options. Commissioner Walls asked what was driving the sunburst design. Mr. Jerrard stated that it gave the entrance some flair. Commissioner Walls continued to ask the spacing of the bars. Mr. Jerrard answered that it is five inches. Commissioner Walls wondered if the bars could be further apart and still meet code. Commissioner Serebrov stated that the cross bars will discourage vagrants. Commissioner Newbern stated that the design does not relate in any way to the door. Mr. Jerrard stated that he does not know of any door that would relate. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an iron fence in front of the site. The answer was no. There was no additional public comment made ( Frida Tirado is an owner of the project). Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would like a simpler design. 5 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Five Staff Brian Minyard interjected that the bylaws state that an application can be deferred to a later agenda and that would give the applicant time to resubmit revised drawings. Commissioner Walls stated that there was a solution to the problem but this was not it. The applicant asked the committee to defer his application in order to resubmit revised drawings. A motion to defer the application until the November 11, 2005 agenda to revise the drawings was made by Commissioner Serebrov. Commissioner Walls seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal. Commissioner Peters stated for the record that he recused because of financial dealings with the applicant. STAFF UPDATE: On October 25, 2005, the applicant presented three alternatives to the enclosure. They are to be referenced as number 1, 2 and 3 as numbered in the sketches. The cover letter states that enclosure number 1 is similar to a gate at a house built in 1929 located in the Heights. The second is a plain one with no ornamentation. The third on is a take off on a stained glass window shown in Gustav Stickley's book Craftsman Homes. The applicant offered the committee three alternates in an attempt to achieve resolution at the November meeting. The third option is the owners' first choice. All of the options have a horizontal spacing between the bars that leaves a 6.78 inch opening between the bars. Existing door detail None of the options truly relate to the front door or transom in the fact that the door has one large wood panel at the bottom and five vertical lights above in the top of the door. Over the door is a horizontal rectangular three light transom. The enclosure could relate to the door if there were a cross members on the enclosure to match the cross members of the door and transom. None of the options truly relate to the front door or transom in the fact that the door has one large wood panel at the bottom and five vertical lights above in the top of the door. Over the door is a horizontal rectangular three light transom. The enclosure could relate to the door if there were a cross members on the enclosure to match the cross members of the door and transom. 6 -7- NEW 111666 � 1 ELF II N OF PORC9-IF�R�N�& OU FS sa9�nen�cK nFrcuisns r 2 EELFa -r � N QF�����LOSURt 3 N N R The first option does have Craftsman influences with the arrangement of the squares and rectangles. The lock plate is integral to the design. It has the Craftsman elements without being too elaborate. The fenestration of the bars could be said to mimic the upper sashes of the windows. The second option is a totally functional option with no ornamentation. It does nod to the vertical panes of the windows, both in the door and transom. This option would most disappear and be the most transparent of the three. The third option is a pure Craftsman style. The building has a simpler design with the detailing of the brackets and windows being the predominate Craftsman influences on the building. This option may be too heavy and too ornate for the structure. If the building had the irregular nine over one sashes as many Craftsman structures do, (as illustrated on the right) the enclosure could relate to the windows. But with the more simple six over one, it does not. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option One as the preferred enclosure because of its more simple, yet Craftsman details. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 504 East 6t" street. Chairman Newbern advised the applicant that all three members would need to vote in approval for it to pass. She asked the applicant if they wished to defer to the next meeting. The applicant decided to have the item heard today. Brian Minyard made a presentation to' the commission. On October 25, 2005 the applicant presented three alternatives for the en closure. He made a brief presentation of the different sketches. The made mention of the three different doors as stated in the staff update in the staff report. The first option does have Craftsman influences with the arrangement of the squares and rectangles. The lock plate is integral to the design. It has the Craftsman elements without being too elaborate. The fenestration of the bars could be said to mimic the upper sashes of the windows. The second option is a totally functional option with no ornamentation. It does nod to the vertical panes of the windows, both in the door and transom. This option would most disappear and be the most transparent of the three. The third option is a pure Craftsman style. The building has a simpler design with the detailing of the brackets and windows being the predominate Craftsman influences on the building. This option may be too heavy and too ornate for the structure. If the building had the irregular nine over one sashes as many Craftsman structures do, (as illustrated on the right) the enclosure could relate to the windows. But with the more simple six over one, it does not. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option One as the preferred enclosure because of its more simple, yet Craftsman details. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 504 East 6t" street. Chairman Newbern advised the applicant that all three members would need to vote in approval for it to pass. She asked the applicant if they wished to defer to the next meeting. The applicant decided to have the item heard today. Brian Minyard made a presentation to' the commission. On October 25, 2005 the applicant presented three alternatives for the en closure. He made a brief presentation of the different sketches. The made mention of the three different doors as stated in the staff update in the staff report. 7 Mr. Jerrard, representing the applicant, commented on the design challenges of the door design. He commented on the spacing of the vertical bars of the enclosures and made mention that the spacing was not dictated by code. He stated that the options range from plain to ornate. A question was made by commissioner Job Serebrov of what color the bars were to be. Mr. Jerrard stated that the other ironwork was black and that a color had not yet been picked. Chairman Newbern asked a question of the placement of the enclosure. She touched on the issue of security and the perceived threat of people camping out in the alcove. Staff clarified that in the minutes that the enclosure would be located six inches behind the brick face of the building. He asked of the applicant if that was still correct, the answer was yes. It is to be located below a beam that is located above. Further discussion occurred and the commission was satisfied with the placement of the enclosure. Chairman Newbern stated that it was appropriate for the commissioners to have a discussion among themselves to clarify their thoughts on the enclosure. She continued that the applicant would need to amend their application to just one enclosure. Debra Weldon, of the city attorney's office, stated that at the last meeting, the commission gave the applicant the opportunity to substitute another enclosure. The commission will give the applicant some feedback on the choices, then give the option to the applicant to amend the applicant to narrow the item to one enclosure only. Then the commission will vote on that enclosure only. Chairman Newbern stated that the commission is trying save that applicant from resubmitting, renotifying, etc., and save time. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about a fence that was stated in the minutes. She asked if the design complimented each other. Chairman Newbern stated that the fences were not that close to each other. John Jerrard stated that the driveway fence does have squares on the design and circles in the design also. Commissioner Serebrov asked for clarification about the vehicular gate and the wood fence that abuts the Rainwater Flats. It was clarified that the Rainwater Flats has a wood fence on their west property line and an iron fence along 6th Street. Mr. Jerrard then sketched the fence design on the board. Commissioner Serebrov asked about the difference in the locking mechanism size between the different enclosures. Mr. Jerrard stated that in number 3, it was a matter of an appropriate standard factory made box. The security of the different boxes is the same. The owner of the condo would have the key to the enclosure. 8 Chairman Newbern stated that she could appreciate the problem. In her own opinion and not speaking for the whole commission, it was difficult to design an enclosure with the varying style of the building. Design number three does not relate to the area and personally likes it least. She stated that enclosure number one adds more lines in the transom. Mr. Jerrard stated that the transom part of the enclosure would not be easily seen from street. She continued that Design number two is the most transparent and is leaning more towards it. She related that the temple front on the building did not relate to the boxes on design number one. Commissioner Tatum spoke concerning staff's recommendation. Commission Serebrov stated that design number one has the square boxes that do not relate to the other fences. He was concerned that the fencing would end up with a mish mash of different fencing. He stated that there should be consistency in the fence. Commissioner Serebrov stated that he personally was in favor of design number two for the consistency argument. It did not introduce any new geometric structures. Commissioner Tatum stated that she too thought that design number two was the most transparent and did not conflict with the existing fencing. Chairman Newbern asked of legal counsel if this was an appropriate time to ask the applicant if they would like to amend their application. Mr. Jerrard stated that they would like to amend their application to option number two for the security enclosure. A motion was made by Commissioner Serebrov and seconded by Commissioner Tatum to approve the enclosure. The motion was passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 9 V. New Certificates of Appropriateness: a. None VI. Other Matters The calendar was discussed and Staff made a note that the date on the Revised calendar should read December 22, 2006 instead of December 220, 2006. A motion was made by Commission Tatum to approve the calendar as revised and Commissioner Serebrov seconded. The motion was passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Staff has worked on the guidelines and will get with Commissioner Walls on which graphics stay in and which will be removed. The guidelines will be presented to the commission as soon as possible. Tony Bozynski stated that the Board of Directors was so busy with the budget in the month of December that taking the guidelines to the board in January was probably a good thing. Staff commented that there were CLG funs to print the guidelines. Mr. Bozynski stated that a request has been made to the Finance Dept for costs related with Historic District Commission. A retreat was discussed and topics were discussed. Mr. Bozynski stated that a retreat would be beneficial for the commission. He continued that a work program should be established. Chairman Newbern brought a file for starting a Preservation Plan with documents from 1990 to the present. Chairmen Newbern stated that the need for a preservation plan was stressed at CAMP in October. She continued that by compiling the existing information, a preservation plan could be made. Chairman Newbern was interested in having a retreat in early January 2006. An email will be sent as to what type of retreat would be beneficial, whole verses half day, topic in addition to guidelines, etc. A one-page flyer was mentioned to be drafted for distribution to the citizens in the historic district. Staff mentioned that there were CLG funds to do that mailing, and that the grant cycle was not calendar years and that the mailing should go out in the first part of next year. Commissioner Serebrov asked that the rest of the commission approve the mail -out prior to distribution. Staff mentioned that it would be appropriate that the guidelines would be done or at the press so that the mailing could mention that that new guidelines are available. Mr. Minyard continued that the state is pressing cities to put the guidelines on the web. That is possible when they are available. A discussion was stated about the separate COA page that was developed last calendar year. Staff committed to looking into finding one, and starting to use it. Commissioner Peters mentioned that he would like to see those posted at the site during construction. Deborah Weldon asked that the signatures be more legible when signing COA's. Further discussion followed with an "Authorization of Representation" statement that is now part of the packet that is sent to the applicant. It was clarified that the application is part of the appendix. 10 A question was brought up about an annual report. Mr. Minyard stated that the Planning and Development did an annual report that covers all department activities. Mr. Minyard stated that he wrote the section for the river market Design Review committee that covers how many meetings were held, how many application were herd, how many passed, filed, major accomplishments, etc. If it was okay with the committee, the annual report for the Historic District Commission could be incorporated in the Departments annual report. Those annual reports go onto the city website. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05. Attest: Chair Date 11