Loading...
HDC_09 14 2015Page 1 of 11 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 14, 2015, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Toni Johnson BJ Bowen Page Wilson (in at 5:10) Jennifer Carman Jeremiah Russell Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Jimmy Moses Rhea Roberts II. Approval of Minutes There were slight changes to the minutes correcting spellings of the words this, that, etc. on the first two pages of the minutes. A motion was made by Vice Chair BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of August 10, 2015 as amended. Commissioner Jennifer Carmen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Wilson). Notice requirements were met on the application to be heard tonight. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 11 DATE: September 14, 2015 APPLICANT: James Moses, Moses Tucker ADDRESS: NEC 6th and Cumberland Streets COA REQUEST: Install fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at Northeast corner (NEC) 6th and Cumberland Streets. The property’s legal description is “Lot 4-6, Block 40, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This lot is covered by a parking lot currently. In the 1978 survey of the area, this no buildings were on the site. This application is to install a fence around three sides of the Central Arkansas Water (CAW) property they use for parking. Also, some site changes will be made, 1) removing part of guardrail, restriping the stall lines, some additional asphalt where guardrail was, restructuring islands, and removing three trees. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to add a six foot fence along three of the four property lines: along the Sixth Street right-of way, the alley that was not already approved through the Legion Village apartment’s project, and along the north property line. The Cumberland Street frontage will not have a fence or gate at this time. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 1. Location of Project Page 3 of 11 The current Guidelines state the following about fences on page 58-9.: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36” Rear yard fencing—72” Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the Google Street View of property from the 6th and Cumberland Intersection. Contributing and Non-contributing map Photo from brochure of “Classic’ style fence. Plan of fence – additional fence areas highlighted by bold blue line. Page 4 of 11 scale of the building and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. The guidelines were revised in 2013 to add the sentence: “For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds.” This is a three lot parcel that is a quarter of a block. Staff does not feel that this is a larger scale property as opposed to MacArthur Park, St. Edwards Church, Kramer School, Cumberland Towers, the Terry Mansion or Gracie Mansion (Fowler Square). The cover letter states: “The proposed fencing is viewed as an aesthetic improvement to the property and is intended to match the height and style of the fencing being installed by its neighbor to the east, ‘Legion Row Apartments’ whom also successfully applied for perimeter fencing with the MacArthur Historic District Commission earlier this year.“ The fence along the south elevation of the Legion Village has been proposed to be reduced since the Commission approved it. It is proposed to not a continual barrier along the property line as before. The center section has been proposed to be moved back to the face of the South Elevation of the Legion village Apartments as approved. A portion of the south elevation of the Legion Village Apartments as approved by Staff in the building permit review process. Page 5 of 11 building, shortened, and has in effect, become a gate flush with the wall of the building. The fence shown on the right above has been proposed to be about five and one half feet off the ground. It is a four foot tall fence on top of the brick porch which sets two steps above the sidewalk. The gate to the parking area will be six feet tall and the gates and fencing around the dumpster will be seven feet tall according to ordinance. Thus the fencing on the Legion Village site will not be a uniform height from the sidewalk. The fencing associated with Legion Village that encloses the alley is for secure parking of tenant’s vehicles with automatic entry gates. The entrances to the property are on the Cumberland Street side. However, with no gates or fencing along Cumberland Street planned, the fence will only serve as a cross pedestrian deterrent and as the cover letter states, “an aesthetic improvement” to the property. Between the Legion Village fencing and the CAW parking lot is the convenience store and the alley. With the fencing at Legion Village being three different heights and the separation between the fencing along 6th Street, it is less important that the fence be of uniform height. Pedestrian circulation and the aesthetics of the property could be improved with a fence of a shorter height than six foot. Staff has been informed that the alley in this block is heavily traveled between the bus transit center and the convenience store. The Legion Village project will close the alley to foot traffic with their fencing plan. That north south traffic would then shift to the east along Rock Street or west to the parking lot between the Paragon Building and the police building. If the pedestrian traffic shifts west, the traffic would end up going through the parked cars of CAW and their employees, hence, the request for the fence. The guidelines state that a three foot fence should be installed. Some site changes will be made as part of this application: 1) removing part of guardrail, 2) restriping the stall lines, 3) some additional asphalt where guardrail was, 4) restructuring islands, and 5) removing three trees. These changes are considered minor to the scope of work. The removing of the guardrail, restructuring the islands and the additional asphalt are under the Commissions review. The restriping of the parking stall lines and the removing of the trees are not. The removing of the guardrail is necessary for internal circulation in the parking lot since the alley will not be used for an aisle after the fence is installed that is part of the Legion Village project. The restriping is also part of the reorganization of the parking lot to allow for internal circulation. The parking surface is asphalt now, the proposed paving and creation of islands will result in a net gain of asphalt of a single digit percentage. This is not a particularly large piece of property and is not the scale of property envisioned when the Commission changed its guidelines as to fence height. With the property remaining a parking lot for the long term, all of the fencing will be viewable to the public. The fencing will match the Legion Village in style but not in height, since Legion Village fencing varies in height. There is physical separation of the fencing between the properties when viewed by the public from the 6th Street. With no gates or access controls on Cumberland Street, this will not be secured parking for the CAW or their employee’s vehicles. Therefore, Staff believes a six foot fence is not necessary to achieve the goals of the cover letter or this application. Staff would propose that a four foot fence would suffice to serve the goals of the applicant. Page 6 of 11 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the height of the proposed fence to four feet in height. 2. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: September 14, 2015 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item. Chair Toni Johnson asked a question on the height of the fence that was approved at Legion Village. Mr. Minyard explained the different height of fences along 6th Street and the break in the fence with the store building and the alley. Jimmy Moses, speaking for the applicant, spoke of the building that is occurring on the east side of the block and the renovation of the legion building. He said that the fence was reactionary to the pedestrian traffic today. They may come back at a later time with a request for a gate, but not at this time. Mr. Moses said that the higher fence would help prevent people from jumping over the fence. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked if it was difficult to jump over a four foot fence. Mr. Moses responded that it has spikes, but it was easier to jump over a four than a five foot fence. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked why when eighty foot of the border was open. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the future plans for the fence. Mr. Moses said that CAW had debated the issue and is not sure if they will enclose the Cumberland side in the future. He described the block and trying to do the right thing for the neighborhood. He described a pedestrian problem that is not like the rest of the neighborhood. There was a discussion on how high the fence was. Mr. Minyard described the heights of the fences along 6th Street again for the commissioners. Commissioner Page Wilson asked about the design of the previous fence. He stated that the drawing from staff were small. Mr. Moses agreed with him that the fence was more aesthetic. He asked about the design of the fence and being unable to determine it from the staff report. There was a discussion on the submittals of the fence. Mr. Minyard stated that there were full color copies of the fence given to the commissioners in their packets that were mailed. In the staff report, there is a cut sheet of the fencing with the details on it. This matches the Legion Village fence exactly. Commissioner Wilson asked if CAW was going to fence all of the corners. Mr. Moses said that he did not know. Commissioner Wilson asked if the project went through Subdivision Committee. Mr. Moses said no. Commissioner Wilson commented on a Low Impact Development (LID) meeting and questioned why they did not explore any LID strategy. There were no citizens that wished to speak on the item. Commissioner Wilson asked if he had a Conflict of Interest because he signs contracts with Central Arkansas Water and currently has a contract with them. Debra Weldon asked him if he has any financial interest in the outcome of this COA. He replied no. She responded that was the measure. Mr. Minyard stated the application as applied for was a six foot fence. The applicant has not amended his application. He continued that if the motion was “as submitted”, the Commission Page 7 of 11 was voting on a six foot fence. Chair Johnson asked if the applicant wanted to amend his application. Mr. Moses wanted to keep a six foot fence on the application. Mr. Moses stated that this will match the other fence on the other project. Commissioner Russell stated that it was not a security issue, but an aesthetic issue. Four feet is too tall in his opinion, but would go along with Staff on that recommendation. Commissioner Russell thinks that three feet will provide a barrier to pedestrians. Commissioner Johnson thinks that Cumberland Street will be gated at some time. Mr. Moses stated that he cannot say whether they will do it or not. He did say that three or four feet did not do what they wanted, but it does match the fence to the east. Commissioner Russell commented that he thought that the items were to be reviewed as presented, not as they might be in the future. If it is a security fence, they should have submitted with a gate. The Commission must look at what is there. There was a discussion on what the guidelines say and property rights. Chair Toni Johnson noted the fence next to it almost the same height. Visually, she believes them to be the same height. Commissioner Russell stated that they were broken up. Commissioner Pekar asked about the security gate between the deli and the apartment building. Mr. Minyard explained that there are two vehicular security gates on 6th Stre et for the apartment building. Commissioner Wilson asked if the commissioners could express their thoughts without saying yes or no. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission could not take a poll. Commissioner Wilson stated that he was fine with the fence and that fences are arbitrary in their approval. Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve the fence as submitted. Commissioner Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no (Russell). Page 8 of 11 V. Other Matters Preservation Plan Implementation update There is a meeting scheduled for September 23 at 9:30 to meet with Bruce Moore, City Manager, to discuss the topics for the meeting. Enforcement issues Enforcement issues noted for the Commission was a sign at 506 Ferry Street that should be on the November agenda. Certificates of Compliance Staff wrote a COC for the Kramer School for roofing and guttering issues . Another has been issued at 609 Rock Street for roofing and venting in the rear half of the building. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Guidelines Revision Chair Toni Johnson asked if they were going to adjourn the meeting and reconvene in a work session. Mr. Minyard attempted to respond. Commissioner Page Wilson stated that he wanted to suspend the guideline revision discussion for two months. He said that the Commission that the process was contaminated with a predetermined outcome. He noted that Commissioner Russell was right and that if the commission followed the guidelines, the Commission should not have supported the fence. He states that he doesn’t really care on fences but Commissioner Jeremiah Russell’s reasoning is sound. Commissioner Russell said that the fence is required to be reviewed. Chair Toni Johnson said that if what they say is true, why not meet more often? Commissioner Wilson asked said that they needed to slow down. He believes we are ignoring QQA emails, and the Commission is creating faux architecture. Chair Johnson does not understand what stopping two months would accomplish. Commissioner Wilson does not want to not create an artificial record of our time. Chair Johnson stated that she understands that we need to have these discussions. Commissioner Wilson referred to a June 9th email to ask for a walking tour of the district. He wants to look at a historic tour of district. Chair Johnson thinks a tour would be good, however, she don’t think that a stop for two months would be helpful. Mr. Minyard said that there would need to be public notice of the tour. He continued that he has spoken to Rachael Silva of AHPP concerning the tour and she is willing to give us a tour of a portion of the district. In an earlier HDC meeting, it was discussed to wait o n the weather to be cooler before the tour was scheduled. Chair Johnson said there was value in both the van and walking tour. Commissioner Wilson asked if anyone read the Key Finding report from the consultant. He maintained that the Secretary of Interior Standards are still being referred in the Infill Guidelines. Commissioner BJ Bowen said that the consultants work was a suggestion and that the Commission may or may not do what was suggested. Commissioner Bowen said that different commissioners had different agendas. Chair Johnson asked if it was necessary to have a motion to have the tour. Mr. Minyard said that was not necessary, Staff would arrange it. He wanted to clarify which tour and the contents of the tour. Chair Johnson would want to have a standard tour of the area. She would request Page 9 of 11 to have a structured tour to see the highlights. Chair Johnson requested to have Rachael Silva schedule a tour and Commissioner Russell asked that it be the before next commission meeting. Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that the QQA was also a resource that could be used. Chair Johnson asked if they would be willing to help. Ms. Roberts said that they could provide additional guidelines. Commissioner Wilson asked if she would like to speak about emulating and imitating. Ms. Roberts stated that best practices say that you should not emulate or recreate historic structures and generally it is considered odd. Being similar is the important thing. She noted that in latest revision, a lot of that language has been removed. You should review all of it and do it right. Commissioner Wilson would suggest that we suspend discussion of guidelines for two months. A motion was made by Commissioner Wilson to not have the discussion tonight on the guidelines and to have a tour before the topic is discussed again. The motion failed for lack of a second. There was a discussion and it was announced the guideline discussion was part of this meeting per the legal ad. There will not be a separate workshop on the guidelines. Chair Johnson asked if there were any comments on page 29. Commissioner Russell stated that there was a typo in the State Statute. Mr. Minyard said that he would check if he made the mistake, but if it was a typo in the statute, it would stay as is. Commissioner Wilson cited city ordinance 26-120(d) and stated that the ordinance needs to be changes to reflect not using rehab rules for infill. Mr. Minyard referred him to paragraph (f) which references new construction. After discussing proposed changes, Mr. Minyard stated that changing the ordinance will require going to the Board of Directors and explained the time frame. Chair Johnson stated that was not enough to go to the Board of Directors for changes. Commissioner Dick Kelley said that page 29 should stay as it is. Commissioner Russell asked why the state statute and city code were part of the guidelines. Mr. Minyard replied that on this page he took out the Secretary of interior Standards and replaced them with the state statute and city code since they give guidance as to the Commissions actions. Commissioner Wilson asked if the city code really says “new construction” in the code. Mr. Minyard said that it did and that the code was available online. Commissioner Wilson asked who determined the area of influence. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission sets the area of influence and that it has been set at 150 feet. Commissioner Wilson stated that he did not know that point. There was a discussion that projects need to blend with the “existing neighborhood and area of influence”. Ms. Weldon explained that both criteria would need to be met. The discussion of what a neighborhood was and if it needed to be defined in the ordinance. Chair Johnson said that she did not feel that there were enough changes to warrant going to the Board of Directors. Commissioner Bowen and Kelley agreed. On page 30, there was a discussion of having a photo of townhomes, but since there are no townhomes in MacArthur Park, then a photo of a different city would be necessary. Commissioner Wilson stated that he does not want to use the images shown and would prefer to see more contemporary houses. Chair Johnson agreed that more contemporary houses should be shown. Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Pekar said that it was disturbing to her to think that the guidelines would include a project that was borderline and it would create a slippery slope. Commissioner Wilson stated that Commissioner Pekar’s house would not be able to be built if the Commission had reviewed her house at the time of construction. Commissioner Pekar said that his statement was not the point and that she was trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard stated that if anyone wanted to send photos to him, he would pass them around to other commissioners to include them in the guidelines. There was a discussion striking the last sentences of the four types of residential structures on page 30 and continuing to page 31. There was a show of hands and it was decided to remove the last sentences of the paragraphs. Chair Johnson requested pictures of new infill structures in the guidelines. Commissioner Wilson want to use recently approved COA infill buildings and projects that have been approved but not built. On page 31, Commissioner Wilson stated he wanted to get rid of items 4-8 listed in the Compatibility by Context section. Chair Johnson said no to that request. Commissioner Russell said that any style can meet the nine design factors regardless of style. There was discussion on removing the last sentence in the paragraph that starts “The term ‘historic precedent’”. Commissioner Pekar stated that different members of the Commission come from different viewpoints. Commissioner Russell stated that the bias of the Commission should be laid aside when reviewing projects and that if the project meets the nine Design Factors that is all that matters. He continued to say that if a project meets the massing, roof, facade, etc., that is not a style or a period in history. Chair Johnson acknowledged that there is a lot of animosity on the commission and she wanted to address it at this point. She admonished the Commissioners on their behavior. She stated that everyone cares about the neighborhood and everyone has different opinions. She continued that this could be wonderful commission because of the different views. She believes that it is embarrassing and rude when they speak ugly to each other and that she should not have to say that to adults. Ms. Weldon agreed with Chair Johnson. She recommended professional decorum for the commissioners. Chair Johnson stated that the last line in the paragraph should stay. Chair Johnson liked having the contributing and non-contributing map in the packet and that it could be relevant. There was a discussion on the moving period of significance. Mr. Minyard stated that the National Park Service was the ultimate discussion maker on this with public meetings at the State Review Board. There was a show of hands to keep the last sentence. Commissioner Russell spoke of the levels of compatibility that has since been stricken. He asked if the middle sentences could be removed because it set up different levels of compatibility for different areas. Different location in the neighborhood will have different levels of cohesiveness of design characters and historic architectural integrity. The level of W cohesiveness of design character and architectural significance will determine the level of compliance with the 9 design factors. There was a discussion that the graphics show only replica lite buildings and not contemporary ones. A show of hands to have different drawings in the guidelines was held. The vote failed with 2 ayes and five noes. Mr. Minyard made a comment that the first full paragraph on page 32 replaced text that was struck on page 33 and 34. Mr. Minyard stated that his perceived instruction from the last meeting was to strike them from the individual design factors and add a paragraph at that point. It was agreed upon to remove the first full paragraph (shown in red). Legal Action Ms. Weldon stated for the record that Commissioner Page Wilson was appealing the latest decision on 1011 McMath. It will be heard in Judge Alice Gray's court with Sherri Latimer, from the City Attorney's office, handling the case for the Commission. She continued that the attorneys will be contacting all of the commissioners with the exception of Commissioner Wilson. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:58 p.m. Attest: r6 r� , 7,rp � Date Date Page 11 of 11