Loading...
HDC_07 11 2016Page 1 of 36 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 11, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: Open Position (QQA) Open Position (Property Owner) City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ralph Wilcox Chris Kent Brenda Kent Terry Kent Dan Fowler Matt McClure Rhea Roberts Constance Sarto John Bush Rett Tucker Jimmy Moses Gregory Roberts Stephanie Roberts Approval of Minutes Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions 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 36 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 1300 E 6th Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Stebbins and Roberts Office Building and Factory to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1300 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN 2 DIFFERENT SECTIONS: SECTION 2-1N-12 AND SECTION 1- 1N-12 MPDA BEG AT INTERSECTION ELN NE SE SECTION 2-1N-12 WITH NLN EAST 6TH 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. A. Location of the Stebbins and Roberts Office Building and Factory Page 3 of 36 STREET TH W899.9 MOL AL CENTERLINE EAST 6TH STREET TH S72' W141' TO E R/W RAILROAD TH NW'LY 86' AL RAILROAD R/W TO CENTERLINE EAST 6TH STREET TH E174' AL CENTERLINE OF STREET TH N165' E151.79' TO WLN SHALL STREET TH E30' CROSSING OVER SHALL STREET TO ELN STREET TH CONTINUE E300' TO WLN INDUSTRIAL STREET TH E30' CROSSING OVER TO ELN INDUSTRIAL STREET TH CONT E394.76' TO ELN NE SE SECTION 2-1N-12 AND THE WLN SECTION 1-1N-12 TH S03*56'05"E49.07' TO THE N R/W E 6TH STREET TH W187' MOL AL STREET R/W TO SECTION LINES AND THE POB LESS & EXC ALL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ROAD AND RAILROAD R/W'S, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using Page 4 of 36 National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comm ents from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Stebbins and Roberts Office Building and Factory to the National Register. The Stebbins & Roberts Office Building and Factory is locally significant under Criterion A in the category of COMMERCE/INDUSTRY as the main office and factory of a locally important manufacturer and distributor of high quality paints and related products. The company had a presence in Little Rock and the surrounding region for over fifty years and their product were used in high profile commissions. The resource also reflects the post-World War II construction boom and is a locally significant example of a post war industrial building in an historic industrial area east of downtown Little Rock. The building is also significant under Criterion C for ARCHITECTURE as a locally significant work of prominent Arkansas architects H. Ray Burks Page 5 of 36 and Bruce Roy Anderson as an example of industrial architecture with Art Deco and Art Moderne elements. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lace individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, stated that he would answer any questions if needed. He said that the item would go to the August 3, 2016 State Review Board meeting. Dan Fowler, the applicant stated he would answer questions if asked. Vice Chair Johnson asked what was the development. Mr. Fowler stated that there were a couple of windows to add, and to replace the glazing in the roll up doors. There is a small addition with an elevator and a staircase. The architectural office will take about 25,000 square feet with retail/restaurant on Shall Street. The second floor will have 16 loft apartments. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if we would review the project. Mr. Minyard stated no since it was outside the MacArthur Park district. Mr. Fowler added that it was a tax credit project. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to support the nomination. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 6 of 36 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy ADDRESS: 113 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Demolition of Structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 113 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “West 40’ of Lots 11 and 12 except the East 11.5’ of the south 31’ Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Cohn House was built in 1889 as a single family house. (There is an addition Cohn House at 904 Scott built in 1871.) The 2006 survey form states: “c. 1895 residence with major alterations.” Also noted is “first floor façade/ porch addition; rear concrete block addition.” It is considered a “Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for demolition of the structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. 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. One. Location of Project Page 7 of 36 Google Street view of north and west elevation Google Street view of east elevation Photo from 1988 Survey Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 65 of the Guidelines it states under the “Guidelines of Relocation and Demolition”: Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the Page 8 of 36 building is compatible with the district’s architectural character in regards to style, period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a “contributing” historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status. Demolition by neglect occurs when routine maintenance procedures are not followed, allowing damage from weather, water, insects or animals. Proper routine maintenance and/or rehabilitation are strongly recommended. Care should be taken when reviewing for an application for demolition of a structure that was not 50 years old at the time of the survey, but are now or close to 50 years old at the time of application. If the district was resurveyed, these buildings may be contributing, but may not be contributing. These applications should be taken on a case by case basis and carefully examine the architecture of the individual building as well as their context within the district. Under certain conditions, however, demolition permits may be granted by the Historic District Commission: 1. The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer, architect, or other person expert in historic preservation. 2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of a building. 3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not to the financial status of the property owner. 4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer contributes to the district. 5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the building. In principal, it is undesirable to demolish buildings in the Historic District partly because that part of the urban fabric is removed. A house removed in a blockface of six houses results in a gap tooth appearance. Corner buildings are important. The applicant has provided two pieces of documentation concerning the condition of the structure. The first is from Curry’s Pest control that states that there is active termite activity occurring in two locations of the building noted by (A) on the plan. There are also notes of water rot to subfloor and joists around plumbing lines. Termite activity is also noted in those areas of rotted joists and subfloors. There is old termite damage to the plate and sill on the west wall. On the cover letter, it states that these areas will require extensive repairs. The second letter is from Matt Foster, MWF Construction. It states that the foundation has not Page 9 of 36 been repaired or maintained over the lifetime of the house and that the joist and support beams would need to be replaced. He also notes termite damage. He continues that if the house were to be leveled, extensive plaster repair would be needed. Another point is that the brick veneer is damaged and missing in some spots. The roof has allowed for water intrusion and compromising the floor on the second level. Staff inspected the interior and exterior of the structure on March 31, 2016. The house was separated into three apartments, one upper and two lower. The one story portion of the house in the rear is a separate apartment. The stairwell has been walled in and the banister has been removed or is hidden. There is little historic door trim and window trim left in the structure. The floors are very uneven, but there are no gaping holes. The brick on the house had been sandblasted in the past by a previous owner, Mary Buchannan. She told Staff that after she sandblasted it, the brick fell off of the bay on the east of the house. She subsequently painted the rest of the brick in an effort to waterproof it. The porch on the front of the house was renovated by Yandell Johnson, a modernist architect that practiced locally. This is shown in the 1939-1950 Sanborn map. No historic photos of the house, prior to the Johnson remodeling, are known to exist. The house may not be salvageable due to the termite and water damage and lack of preventative maintenance over the years. If the building is demolished, care should be taken to remove all construction debris and maintain a clean site afterwards. Removal of any architectural fragments for reuse would be positive. Details of Sanborn Maps: 1892 Sanborn Map 1939 Sanborn Map 1939-1950 Sanborn Map The Sanborn maps above show the changes to the area. In 1892, there was another house at 111 E. 9th to the west of the project site that also faced north. There are two one story sheds in the rear of the property. By 1939, the sheds had been replaced by the concrete structure that is there now for automobile storage and stalls. The house at 111 E 9th had been removed. Staff has been told that the house at 900 Scott had been moved south sometime between 1892 and 1939 to 904 Scott and was turned into a clinic. A new building (rooming house) was built on the corner. By the 1939-1950 map, the house at 113 E 9th had been altered on the front and an addition on the southwest corner of the house had been completed. Since the last map, the structure at 900 Scott has been removed, the house at 908 burned last year, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete garage stalls on the site had been removed. Page 10 of 36 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Vice-Chair Jeremiah Russell made a request that Staff check the minutes for the date of construction for this structure. Mark Brown and Jill Judy were present as applicants. Ms. Judy spoke that they bought the building six months ago and that it had been vacant for a while. She noted that they had saved a lot of buildings in the area. She spoke of issues with dumpster placement and parking. She talked about the configuration of the lots and that the demolition of this building would not change the percentage of contributing and non-contributing nor would it change the fabric of the neighborhood. Without historic photos, there is no way to make it contributing. She continued to speak of the faults in the foundation and that the brick veneer would have to be replaced. She stated that the brick may not be original to the structure. Mark Brown stated that the brick has settled around the windows and that the new bricks would not make it historic. Vice Chair Russell asked if they were demolishing the structure for access. What was the intent of the demolition? He continued to ask if they intended to build anything. The applicant clarified that they did not intend to erect a building on this property. He mentioned that 908 was vacant now and with the empty lot on the corner, it would be ideal to have houses in those spots. Ms. Judy stated that there is only five feet of access on the side of the house at 113 E 9th. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if the reason to tear it down was for trash dumpster and parking. Mr. Brown replied that it was an eyesore and that it was not worth rebuilding. The demolition was part of the overall revitalization. Ms. Judy stated that there was no access to the either back yard for parking. She stated that there was no on-street parking or back yard parking. Commissioner Wilson stated that this neighborhood was not car-centric. To that, Ms. Judy asked if he would build something with no parking. Commissioner Wilson replied that they can park in the street. Mr. Brown commented that the building used to be a slum building. They received a total of $1500.00 per month in rents as is. When asked, he replied that there was nothing in this building. Vice Chair Russell agreed that it was an eyesore, but stated that neighborhood revitalization is not an empty lot. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that demolitions are the most serious COAs that the Commission hears. She noted the letter from Matt Foster and the defects of the building. She asked if they would consider deferring to get a letter from a preservation professional, AHPP, an engineer, etc. to help clarify the issue. Ms. Judy stated that they owned three buildings on this block and did not want a slum property there. She stated that it was economically unfeasible to rehab the structure. Page 11 of 36 Commissioner Wilson said that preservation is the number one duty of the Commission. He wants to be responsible and follow the process. He would be amenable to the deferral. He asked who had the qualifications other than the city to make the judgement on if it cannot be rehabbed. Commissioner Johnson suggested that they ask Bryan Driscoll of AHPP to visit the property. She commented that it would be an easier vote if there was someone in the preservation field to say that demolition was appropriate. A third party opinion would be a stronger case. It was discussed and agreed that this deferral was at the request of the Commission. The applicant asked for the July meeting. The deferral was requested for two months till the July meeting for the purpose of gathering some information from an independent source. A motion was made to defer to the July 2016 hearing by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position (QQA) and 1 recusal (Kelley). STAFF UPDATE: July 11, 2016 Staff has not been in communication with the applicant since the last hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the new information since the last hearing. He summarized the letters from AHPP and from Tommy Jameson, Architect on the building. He stated that Staff’s recommendation is still approval of the demolition. Commissioner Dick Kelley recused himself from the discussion and the room at this time. Owners Mark Brown and Jill Judy were there to represent the item. Mr. Brown said that it was a rare occurrence to ask for a demolition of a structure in the district. He wanted feedback on the item and has talked to AHPP and Bryan Driscoll visited the site. Ms. Judy then suggested that they contact Tommy Jameson for an opinion on the demolition. Mr. Brown said that the economic return was not there on that building. They have restored buildings before and have done it successfully but this building will never be contributing. It will be a Disneyland house. There are no photos to support what it looked like. The contractor letter and the letter from the termite company are still valid and Staff recommends demolition. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked what the proposed use is. Mr. Brown spoke of 904 Scott. If allowed, it would be nice to have parking for 904 Scott on this site. 113 E 9 th sites on a small lot and has no access to its back yard. Ms. Judy added that this was part of 900 Scott at one time, but there is no alley for access. The access for this lot has to be from 9th street. Mr. Tommy Jameson stated that he was available to answer any questions concerning his letter. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that it was always difficult to recommend demolition of a structure. She offered the following points. 1) It is non-contributing. 2) There is no Page 12 of 36 documentation to make it contributing. 3) It has messy brick and inappropriately applied brick. 4) It has structural issues. 5) It has termite damage. 6) It has lost all architectural integrity. And 7) The letter from Tommy Jameson recommending demolition. Vice Chair Russell supports the demolition on this item but the Commission must think of the future use. Vacant lots do not help the neighborhood. Ms. Judy stated that they have a beautiful historic district that needs access, we like our cars and 904 Scott Street is landlocked for access to the back yard. She continued how were they going to be able to save 904 if they had no parking for the apartments? The city does not have parking on the street. Commissioner Becky Pekar asked if they had plans to landscape the parking area. Vice Chair Russell stated that the city requires landscaping in the parking lots. Vice Chair Russell asked about the concrete wall in the rear. Ms. Judy said that she wanted it gone. The concrete wall is owned by 904 Scott Street. Vice Chair Russel spoke of the viability of the neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated that he does not own the corner lot. Commissioner Pekar agreed that the building is an eyesore and also agrees that people want parking but it would be better if we were not to have so many cars. Chair BJ Bowen stated that he could understand why they would want it demolished. No citizens chose to speak on this item. Vice Chair Russell stated that he would support the demolition on their item. He has seen their work in the neighborhood and hopes that the parking lot is beneficial to the vitality of the neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the demolition with staff recommendations by Vice Chair Russell and seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 recusal (Kelley) and two open positions. Commissioner Dick Kelley rejoined the meeting at this time. Page 13 of 36 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Tommy Jameson, Jameson Architects ADDRESS: 301 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Kitchen addition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 301 E 7th Street. The property’s legal description is “the West 87 1/2 feet of Lots 1,2, and 3 of Block 42, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built in c 1878 by Dr. Charles James Lincoln. The 2006 survey form states: “Italianate style structure with decorative cornice brackets, segmented arch decorative window tops and paired entry doors.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Kitchen addition and expansion of the porch. It is also for the gazebo over the well being removed. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 18, 2004, a COA was approved and issued to John Bush to restore, replace, and paint wood trim on south side addition to house. Also to replace two 'garden' windows with appropriate clad period style windows. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This addition is for a roughly 9’ x 21’ expansion to the kitchen and a 4 ½ foot extension of the accompanying porch. Currently, the façade of this area is windowless and behind a six foot privacy fence. However, it is visible from the street, and therefore subject to review of this Commission. The new addition will match the architectural style of the existing using 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. One. Location of Project Contributing / Non-contributing map Page 14 of 36 Hardie siding and trim to duplicate the existing exposure and thickness of the siding, corner boards and trim. The low sloped roof will be in keeping with that part of the existing house. The current Guidelines state on page 54 under Additions: Additions should be of a compatible design, in keeping with the original structure’s character, roof shape, materials, and the alignment of window, door, and cornice height. Additions include porches and bay windows, as well as entire wings or rooms. They should be located on the rear façade and be subordinate to the original structure. Additions should be constructed in a manner that avoids extensive removal or loss of historic materials. They also should not destroy or damage character-defining details, including front or side porches. Additions should not hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the structure’s historic period. Avoid imitating an earlier historic style or architectural period. Also avoid copying exactly the historic structure; instead, distinguish the new from the original, perhaps by simplifying or streamlining the new design. If possible, keep original exterior walls and utilize existing openings for connecting an addition with the original structure. Excavation adjacent to historic foundations should take care to avoid undermining the structural stability of the historic structure. The Lincoln house has had many additions over time as evidence by the Sanborn Maps. The 1892 Sanborn maps did not cover this block. The 1897 map shows a detached kitchen building connected the main house by a covered porch that was on the east and south side of the building. The 1913 map shows that the south facing porches had been enclosed and there was an addition to the kitchen on the east side (which is now called the pantry). The kitchen itself has become a two story structure at this point as well as the south facing porch. The well and well house are shown. The 1939 map shows that the kitchen is now part of the house with the separating porch being enclosed. It shows a porch to the north and an addition to the kitchen to the south. The 1939-1950 map shows the kitchen area virtually the same. Out buildings have been added and torn down over the life of the house. This to say, that the rear half, the non- brick portion of this house, has been an organic structure with additions and enclosures over the years. What has remained constant until this day is that the kitchen has been in the same space. Existing north elevation (note well house structure with pyramidal eight sided roof) Page 15 of 36 1897 Sanborn map 1913 Sanborn map 1939 Sanborn map This addition would, in essence, bring the existing north wall of the kitchen forward 9 feet with the mimicking of the existing siding and trim in modern materials. It will be distinguishable from the historic portions of the house upon closer inspection, but maybe not from the street. The gazebo over the well has been removed in order for the expansion to occur. The structure was an octagonal open air structure with a hipped eight sided roof that stood over the well. It has been removed from the site, either demolished or moved to a different location. Proposed addition (note removal of well house structure) Site Plan detail The proposed addition is shown in the graphic above. The view is from 7th Street showing the east side of the house. In the enhanced photo, the original kitchen is under the two story white portion of the house with the red brick chimney to the east. The addition has been sketched onto the photo and is proposed to be on the side of the kitchen extending towards the foreground of the photo towards 7th Street. The plan view to the right is oriented with 7th Street to the bottom of the graphic. Page 16 of 36 Photo from 2006 Survey Photo of rear of house from 2006 Survey The photo of the rear of the house shows the organic quality of the numerous additions and modifications to the house. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation on the item. Mr. John Bush, owner of the property, spoke of the difference in the number of votes needed to pass versus the number of commissioners present and the vacant open positions. Mr. Tommy Jameson, project architect, stated that the elements of the addition are the same elements in the historic house. Commissioner Becky Pekar asked if there were any windows in the addition. Staff replied no. Mr. Bush stated that he would answer questions if needed and would ask the Commission for their support. Vice Chair Russell asked why there were no windows in that addition. Mr. Bush stated that they were trying to minimize the request for the presentation and that windows might have given the Commission a reason to reject the proposal. Vice Chair Russell stated that it would benefit the project to have windows. Mr. Bush stated that if the commission would look to the second floor of the building, above the proposed addition, that they could add a window like that one. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated that Mr. Jameson could work with him on adding a window to the addition. Commissioner Toni Johnson added that placing a window like the one above would work. Mr. Bush amended his application to add one or two windows consistent with the window above to the addition. Debra Weldon, of the City attorney’s office, asked Mr. Bush to clarify if it was one window or two. Mr. Bush stated he was asking for two windows. No citizens chose to speak on this item. Page 17 of 36 Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the application as amended to add two windows to replicate the wood 6/6 window above. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 open positions. Page 18 of 36 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Brenda and Terry Kent ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Replacement Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 E 7th Street. The property’s legal description is “North 100’ of Lot 1, Block 4, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This house was built c 1960. The 2006 survey form states: “A 1960 rendition of Greek Revival with pediment over entry portico and wrought iron columns replacing classical colonnade.” It is considered a "Non-contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for replacement windows and the removal of the bars in the windows. Shutters were discovered to be added to the front façade on July 1, 2016 which have not been approved by the Commission nor originally included in this application. Shutters were on the house for the 2006 survey, but were not on the house at the time of the application. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 9, 2007, a COA was issued for the replacement of columns on the front porch, installing a privacy fence in the rear yard and painting the brick structure. The painting of the brick structure and the replacement of the front porch column portion of the application were due to an enforcement issue. On August 11, 2008, a COA was issued for the satellite dish, ceiling fan and iron fence. The exterior lights and window replacements were not approved at that hearing. 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. Two. Location of Project Contributing / Non-contributing map Page 19 of 36 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This proposal is for replacing all of the windows in the house with new wood windows. Staff met with the applicants on site on May 24th and inspected the windows inside and outside of the house. Currently, the windows are 8/8 and 6/6 wood double hung windows and appear to be the original windows. Instead of ropes or chains that were used in earlier windows, these windows have a metal wire. Staff did not find any rot on the windows. Some upper sashes were not properly raised to the top of the opening and were painted and caulked in that position which meant that the lock at the meeting rails did not function. This also made the window appear out of square. On page 43 of the current Guidelines under the Rehabilitation section, they state: Replacing original wood windows with vinyl or other replacement windows is not recommended by these guidelines. A similar efficiency rating (U-factor) will be achieved by adding storm windows over your existing wood windows that are in good working order. On page 44, under the Rehabilitation section they state: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may be appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows are wood construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that facilitates easier maintenance. Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the historic district since they were not historically installed in the structures. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. Screen and Storm Windows: Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do not require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Exterior screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in a color to match the window sash paint color and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames. Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may also be mounted on the inside of windows. Half screen and screen or storm windows smaller than original window, are not recommended. Parts of a double hung window Page 20 of 36 All but two windows are original to the house. The single attic window on the west side is a metal replacement window and the window on the first floor located on the west side on the southwest corner of the house has been converted to glass block. The double window in the attic on the east side was in the worst repair of all, but from inside the house, the wood was solid and appeared that the stop on the outside needed to be replaced. Installation of storm windows were discussed with the applicants at the time of the site visit. Options of repair were also discussed with the applicants. Photo from 2006 Survey Current photo The Commission discussed replacement windows in the Commission Hearing on January 11, 2010 in the Workshop item. It covered Storm Windows and Replacement Windows. A portion of that report is included: The topic of energy savings has again moved to the forefront of renovations with the added tax credits for rehab and energy conservation tax credits passed by Congress that will give credits to many items that conserve energy from new appliances, new heat and air systems, insulation in your home, new replacements windows and storm windows. Air infiltration is the culprit that many of these home renovations are attempting to thwart. Most homeowners are assured that “new windows” will save them lots of money and will solve all of their air infiltration issues because the window salesman told them so. However, as the chart to the right and the one below show, air infiltration by windows and doors are ranked fifth and sixth of all air infiltration culprits. The main offender in air infiltration in the home is floors, walls, and ceilings that account for 31% of all air infiltration. After that is ductwork at 15%, fireplaces at 14% and plumbing penetrations at 13%. Source: California Energy Commission Page 21 of 36 Basically, air seeps through your walls, ceilings, and floors at a much greater rate than through your windows and doors combined. Adding insulation to your ceilings and floors can be done with no external change to the structure and not evoke the COA process. The insulation of walls can be more difficult, but can be achieved from inside or outside without a COA. Likewise, sealing the HVAC ductwork; inspecting and replacing or repairing the damper in your fireplace; installing expanding foam around plumbing entries; and sealing around fans, vents, and outlets can save energy dollars without a COA. For many years, people have been adding storm windows to their home. According to Paul Trudeau, (NAPC Staff) storm windows have been in existence for over 100 years. Before that, people protected the sashes of their windows through operable shutters. The addition of storm windows changed with the recent invention of vinyl (plastic) windows. The vinyl was cheap enough to entice people to replace the whole window unit instead of adding storm windows. The chart below describes energy savings and financial payback on window replacements. The chart assumes this is existing construction with single pane original windows in place. This chart was shown by Paul Trudeau at CAMP in September 2009 in Eldorado, AR. Starting on the left side of the graphic, a $50 storm window when combined with the existing window has a U-factor (efficiency factor) of .50. Your old wood window has a U-Value of 1.10. The lower the U-factor, the better. The energy savings is 722,218 Btu with an annual savings per window of $13.20. This simple payback will take 4.5 years. The next three examples show differences in the types of windows installed and the types of windows being replaced. This is annual energy savings as compared to the window it is replacing. The energy savings noted in this chart is not for new construction. For example, to replace your original window with a double-pane thermal window saves 625,922 Btu over what was there before. Your windows will be tight, but the cost will take 40.5 years to recoup Source: U.S. Department of Energy Page 22 of 36 the cost. By that time, a vinyl window will need to be replaced and the homeowner will be “underwater on their window mortgage.” A more extreme example is to replace your original windows and storm windows with Low-e glass double pane thermal windows. That takes 240 years to recoup the cost of the windows. Also, note that the old windows go to the dump yard when taken out. The thermal seal in the double and triple paned windows are noticeable when they are broken as evidenced by the condensation in between the layers of the glass. The metal on storm windows can be painted to match the sash of the house before they are installed. Storm windows also come in different colors from the factory, mill (aluminum color), bronze and white are common colors. Painting your windows at the same time as installing the storm windows will provide a seamless installation that will obscure the presence of the storm windows as much as possible. It is also important to buy storm windows with full screens that mimic t he older screens. On fixed windows, no screen is allowable, since no screen would have been there originally. On operable storm windows, the sash size must match with the original windows to provide the best results. Interior storm windows are an option that does not require a COA. Some research on the web provided professional companies along with do-it-yourself options. A DIY option is at http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/energy/conservation/basics_1/window_cover.htm . Toolbase Services has a list of manufacturers of interior storm windows at Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A. Collingswood Historic District Commission Page 23 of 36 http://www.toolbase.org/TechInventory/TechDetails.aspx?ContentDetailID=938. Climate Seal promotes interior storm windows that have a “refrigerator like seal” that has a magnetic attachment system described at the website below. http://www.climateseal.com/preservation_window_inserts/preservation_window_inserts. htm. All of the interior storm windows that were located on line are removable during mild weather days to allow the opening of the original windows. Below are two graphics that show interior storm windows. The energy savings calculated in the graphic above are based on exterior storm windows, not interior storm windows although U-Values are thought to be similar. Below are the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for storm windows and replacement windows. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated This shows a person removing an interior storm window. This shows the interior storm window installed. It is placed vertically against the lower sash in this photo. Page 24 of 36 from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. When the Secretary of the Interior Standards are applied strictly, no replacement windows are installed in the district. The addition of storm windows is completely reversible, as standard number 10 requires where as a replacement window is not. The education of the public needs to enforce the facts that replacement windows are not the end all to energy savings that they are purported to be, not on a financial level or an energy saving level. Maintaining the original wood windows with an appropriate interior or exterior storm window is acceptable to the HDC and the Secretary of Interior Standards. The applicant has requested a wood window manufactured by Lincoln Windows in their Traditions Collection. It is a non-clad window that arrives primed. It features double pane glass. The windows have been specified with internal grids (between the glass panes). The specifications state a custom screen is included in the quote. This choice in wood windows is an excellent choice for infill construction. However, as stated on page 2 of this report, Staff inspected the windows and did not find the windows to be un-repairable. The aluminum window in the west facing second story is non-original to the house and the windows on the east f açade second floor need the most repair work of any of the windows. This structure is non-contributing to the district, but not because of age. The other ranch house at Commerce and 10th is contributing to the district. This house at 501 E 7th has had its ornamental iron porch posts replaced with wood columns and the house painted. These changes to the house were part of an enforcement action in 2007. The current Guidelines state under the Rehabilitation section on page 45: Shutters should be retained, if original to the building. They should be of louvered wood and should fill the window opening, if closed. Shutters should not be added if no historic evidence exists. Shutters that are too large, too small or of the wrong design are not recommended. Staff has no information on the shutters that were installed by the time of the photo taken on July 1, 2016 as to the size, manufacturer or model. The 1988 survey photo does not show shutters on the house, but the 2006 survey does. The shutters feature two panels, are too tall for the window opening and are too narrow to cover the opening. Staff believes that the original windows can be made operable are still serviceable with proper maintenance. The Quapaw Quarter Association keeps a list of contractors that specialize in the Shutters Page 25 of 36 maintenance and repair of wood windows. Staff does not believe that the shutters that are installed are appropriate to the house. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial: COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. He added that the shutters that had been added to the house had not been advertised for the hearing. After a brief discussion with Debra Weldon, of the city Attorney’s office, it was decided that the shutters could be included in the hearing tonight as part of the application. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked why the house was non-contributing. Vice Chair Russell directed her to the staff report which covered those points. Vice Chair Russell also noted for the record that these windows were true divided lite windows. Chris Kent, spoke for his parents. He stated that it was not their original plan to redo windows. The previous owner had done stuff that was not proper. They had discovered more rot as the project goes on. He noted that there is an aluminum window in the kitchen. They had taken the shutters off to paint. The new shutters match the front door. He continued that there are bars in the windows that they want to remove. He did say it was an important corner being next to the Terry Mansion. The holes in the frames left by the bar installation will have to be fixed. The rot was covered up by the paint. The new widows will help the homeowners have less of a carbon footprint with new ductwork and windows. He continued that they will match the pattern of muntins in the new windows. He assumes that there is lead present in the house and that they will take common sense precautions on the lead paint removal. Commissioner Toni Johnson would like to see the photos of the rotted windows. She added these points. 1) The house seems to be non-contributing because of the porch columns and the brick being painted. 2) The brick being painted alone would not necessarily make the house non-contributing. 3) If the posts were put back, it might be contributing again. These points make her hesitant to support the windows. Vice Chair Jeremiah stated that it was a nice home bur not architecturally significant. It is not worthy of individually listing. Would it ever be eligible in a district? Maybe not, since it would be difficult to replicate the old porch posts. Vice Chair Russell said that there were thousands of studies and half supported replacement windows and half did not. The new windows will provide a better environment. It is a non- contributing house and will never be contributing again. The owners are going to great expense to mimic the windows that are wood double hung windows. He thought it was a no- brainer. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if you could remove the paint from the brick. Vice Chair Russell said that if you power washed or used chemicals to strip the paint, you could, but both would destroy the brick. Page 26 of 36 No citizens chose to speak on this item. Commissioner Johnson said that just because there was lead paint was not a reason to get rid of the windows. Anything painted before 1970 has lead paint in it. She feels that it could eventually be contributing but removing the original windows will never make it contributing. Vice Chair Russell asked what is the overall benefit to require them to repair the windows in hope that someday it will be contributing. Commissioner Johnson asked that because of style of the house, are we holding them to a lower standard? Vice Chair Russell stated that we should hold them to a lower standard, it was a good house, but was not architecturally significant. Chair BJ Bowen asked Staff if the windows showed signs of rot when he was on site. Mr. Minyard responded that he did not see rot and that the windows were painted. However, if you scraped the paint to repaint, it would be possible to discover rot that he would not have seen. Vice Chair Russell stated that the shutters were inappropriately sized and the house would have probably not had shutters originally. He asked if the shutters should be removed. Mr. Kent stated that the shutters will be removed and amended his application to not reinstall shutters in the future. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application as presented and to remove the shutters and not reinstall shutters on the house and remove bars from windows. Commissioner Becky Pekar seconded and the item was approved with 5 ayes and 2 open positions. Page 27 of 36 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Stephanie Roberts ADDRESS: 1014 Rock COA REQUEST: Roof modifications on main house and on garage building, replace front doors, replace porch posts, addition of shutters and iron fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1014 Rock. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This structure was built c 1880. The 2006 survey form states: “1880’s residence with enclosed porch continuing use a single family residence.” It also states that the screening has been removed on the porch and that it is a “Simple Queen Anne style structure of cross gable subset. Two additions have been made to the rear of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The application is for roof modifications on main house and on garage building, replacing front doors, replacing porch posts, addition of shutters and iron fence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 22, 1999, an administrative approval was granted to replace the roof to Stephanie and Greg Roberts. On March 18, 1997, COA was approved to install a picket fence to Stephanie and Greg Roberts. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposed changes to the house will be described in the following order: Roof modifications on main house and on 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. Three. Location of Project Contributing / Non-contributing map Page 28 of 36 garage building, replace front doors, replace porch posts, addition of shutters and iron fence. In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 50, the Guidelines state: 6. Roofs: Roofs should be preserved in their original size, shape, and pitch, with original features (cresting, chimneys, finials, cupolas, etc.) and, if possible, with original roofing material (slate, tile, metal.) Composition shingles may be used if the original material is not economically feasible. Dark colors are best for historic buildings. Dormers should not be introduced on primary façades but may be added to side and rear facades if appropriate with the character and scale of the structure. Balconies, skylights, or decks should not be added to a roof where visible from the street. Roof pitch is expressed as a ratio of the vertical rise to its horizontal run. A 6:12 pitch rises 6’ for every 12’ of horizontal run. The main house has had roofing problems for some time due to poorly planned additions to the house. This has resulted in a valley over a portion of the rear of the house that is prone to leaking and has caused both interior and exterior water damage to the house. Currently, the house has two gabled wings that extend to the rear of the house that join. A newer addition has been added to the rear that mimics the dual gables and exacerbates the problem. The sanborn maps below are for reference of how the house and site has changed over the years. Front of house photo from 2006 Survey Photo from the 1978 Survey 2016 photo of rear of house Rear of house photo from 2006 Survey Page 29 of 36 The owners’ proposal is to keep the outside pitch of the older additions (12/12) and to extend them skyward to the center of the house until they meet. This will remove a portion of the problem. However, this will affect the front elevation of the house by introducing the top of the gable end which will be almost five feet above the ridge line of the house. They are proposing to put siding in the small gable end and match the soffit and fascia details of the original house. On the newest addition to the house, the shorter section with one bay window, these side walls will be raised to match the older walls and the roof will be raised to match the proposed roof adjacent to the front of the house. There are also four dormers proposed to be added on the side elevations of the house. In elevational view, the ridgeline of the dormers are visible over the ridgeline of the original house. However, when standing on the street, the dormers will 1897 Sanborn map 1913 Sanborn map 1939 Sanborn map 1939-1950 Sanborn map Proposed north elevation Proposed south elevation Proposed front elevation Page 30 of 36 probably not be visible. The dormers would be visible from the street when viewing the house from an angle. Currently, the house does not have any dormers. Aerial view of roof Existing roof plan Proposed roof plan The roof modifications would change the rear façade of the house making it substantially higher. The proposal is to remove the existing door and windows and replace with two sets of patio doors. A double window would be added to the second floor and an attic vent. This roof modification would solve the water issue but the house would lose some of the visual history of the multiple additions to the rear. The outbuildings in the rear yard has changed over the years. On the first Sanborn map, there were three outbuildings in the rear yard. In 1913, it was shown to extend the full property width. In 1939, the notion of an “A” noted it as automobile storage. Later, a garage was only on the north side of the lot. See Sanborn maps above. Sometime after 1950, the current garage was constructed which is closer in scale and location to the 1913 outbuilding. The proposal from the owner is to remove the low pitched roof (approximately 4/12) and to replace it with a 12/12 roof which would add storage space over the garage. A stair would be placed on the north side of the structure for entry. Dormers would be added to the roof facing the house. This would make this garage a one and one-half story structure. In the area of 2016 photo of garage Proposed garage Page 31 of 36 influence, there are two one story garages, and one two story in addition to the subject property. The two story garage carriage house at 1001 Cumberland was approved a received a COA in 1999. Overall in the district, there are 18 garages placed along the alley and eight other garages in rear yards. 4 of the total of 26 are two story or 15% of the total. When referencing the scaled drawings that were presented to the Commission, the garage is noticeably wider that the house. The scale and massing of a two story equivalent of a three car garage is too large. This garage is not visible from the street, however with the proposed changes, it would be. The garage has a significant enough roof pitch to shed water as it exists today. In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 44, the Guidelines state: 1. Doors: Original doors and/or their entranceway surrounds, sidelights, transoms, and detailing should not be removed or changed. Replacement of missing original doors should be like or very similar to the original in style, materials, glazing (glass area), and lights (glass pane configuration.) Doors should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade where readily visible from the street. If doors are added to an inconspicuous secondary or rear wall, they should be similar to the original doors. The proposal is to replace both front doors with a matching pair. The door selected is a JELD-WEN Steel Glass panel exterior door with ¾ window on the top and two panels below. Currently, there are mismatched doors, one 15 lite French door and one with half glass on the top which are not historic on the house. This ratio of glass and solid on the proposed door is appropriate for this Folk Victorian house. In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 47, the Guidelines state: Porch details and steps: Porch details should be retained intact, with repair or replacement of missing parts (columns, posts, railings, balusters, decorative molding and trimwork) to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. Porch columns and rails should not be replaced with decorative iron work Porch floors should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the façade, unless the original floor was concrete. Porches may be screened if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Ceiling fans should be mounted high enough to minimize view from the street. Porch steps, which are original to a property, should be retained and maintained. Brick and concrete steps are rarely original. Stair railings: Stair railings may be required to meet city building codes. If historical evidence of style and placement exists, duplicate the original hand rails. Many times, however, none existed or wooden rails deteriorated and were removed early in the history of the building. If no historical evidence exists, railings may be constructed of simple metal pipe or flat bars and painted to match the trim color. In essence, the least obtrusive yet functional option may be used. Proposed door Page 32 of 36 The front porch was screened in at one time and the 4x4 post that currently support the posts were part of that modification. The 1978 survey shows it screened in, but he 2006 survey does not. When the porch was screened it, it made sense where the posts were located. Now, the porch is no longer screened and the owner wishes to replace the 4x4s with more appropriate posts. The proposed posts are from Century Porch Posts, “Urban” model and are made of wood. All of the company’s posts are made from wood and they offer a variety of widths. The house across the street is also a Folk Victorian and the posts requested are similar to theirs. It features a post split vertically on the ends of the porch. Staff believes that the posts proposed are an appropriate style for this house. Width of post should be similar to the posts across the street and the number of posts can be reduced. Staff recommends adding the vertically split post on the ends of the porch to mimic house across the street. In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 45, the Guidelines state: Shutters: Shutters should be retained, if original to the building. They should be of louvered wood and should fill the window opening, if closed. Shutters should not be added if no historic evidence exists. Shutters that are too large, too small or of the wrong design are not recommended. The proposal is to add shutters to the front of the house. There is evidence that there were shutter hinges on the front windows at one time. The proposed shutters are from Tim berline Exterior Shutters in a faux louvered shutter. The shutter is milled from a solid sheet of composite material. They are 1 ¼ inches thick and are available in ½ inch increments from 12 - 24 inches wide and from 30-96 inches tall. Shutters should be purchased to cover the entirety of the window opening and should be mounted with the appropriate hinges or at least in the spot where they would be if hinges were there. Staff believes that the design of the shutters is appropriate. In Section VI Design Guidelines for Site Design, on page 58, the Guidelines state: 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. Proposed post Proposed Shutter Page 33 of 36 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 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. Freestanding 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 proposal is to add a metal fence to the front of the property. The owner is concerned that if a wood picket fence was installed with the two adjacent neighbors on each side having a picket fence that a “compound” appearance would evolve. The 2006 survey shows a picket fence at the property. The fence was approved in 1997, but Staff does not know when it was removed. Picket fences come in a variety of styles that would fit the guidelines. The width and spacing of the pickets and the design on the top of the picket give variation to the streetscape. A fence could be designed and built that were not like the two neighboring fences. The metal fence that is shown in the application is quite ornate for a Folk Victorian house. This house was more of a ‘blue collar’ type house, not a high style mansion. The proposed fence is not appropriate style-wise with this house. If a metal fence was desired, a much more simple fence with two cross rails instead of three and very simple finials would be more appropriate. In summary, the roof on the main house is obviously a problem. The proposed changes could be appropriate. Staff is concerned about the visibility of the dormers and the proposed ridge of the rear roof being visible from the front of the house. Proposed Fence Page 34 of 36 Staff does not believe that the changes to the roof of the garage are appropriate to the area of influence. The majority of the outbuildings in that area, as well as the district, is one-story and if built, the garage would be much more visible than it is now. Staff believes that the proposed front doors are an appropriate choice for the structure. Staff believes that the replacement front porch posts are appropriate to the house and that a split vertical post should be installed on each end of the porch and that the overall number of posts could be reduced since there is no longer screening on the porch. Staff believes that the shutter design is appropriate, although the material may not be. Shutters should be installed with historic hinges or where the shutters would be if hinges were present. Staff does not believe that the proposed metal fence is appropriate for this property. A simpler metal fence or a wood picket fence that could be different than the neighbors would be appropriate. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the changes to the garage building and fencing, Approval with the following conditions on the remainder of the items: 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Commissioner Becky Pekar recused from this item and left the meeting. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item and the staff recommendations on each item. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the changes would make it non-contributing. She particularly asked about the changes in the roof and since additions can make a property non-contributing, that is a red flag for her. She also noted the scale of the garage and asked if the footprint changed. Stephanie Roberts, the owner, stated that they had been having trouble with the room for some time. They had replaced the roof only to have the damage come back. They builder suggested the change in the roof and they are willing to accept guidance from the commission. She stated that they had asked for the dormers to use the attic for future space. Ms. Roberts said they wanted the roof of the garage to match the house and they were open to modifying or adjusting to keep with the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson asked if they wanted a two story house. Ms. Roberts said to fix the roof was the main objective and that a byproduct was to gain the extra space. They considered a shed dormer originally and thought the two dormers would be attractive. They would benefit the attic space. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if they were hung up on the 12/12 pitch on the rear of the house. Ms. Roberts said they were trying to match the older portion of the house. Commissioner Kelley asked if they had discussed lowering the pitch so that the ridge of the new roof would be at the same height of the ridge of the front of the house. Ms. Roberts said that Page 35 of 36 they could consider that. Mr. Gary Roberts said they would work with the architect to lower the pitch. Commissioner Johnson suggested a deferral to make sure that AHPP thought that the addition would not make the house non-contributing. Ms. Roberts said that she would get input from them. Commissioner BJ Bowen suggested that they work with staff to design or pick a fence that would be more appropriate for the house. Ms. Roberts said that she would look at other metal fences. Vice Chair Russell stated the following: 1) you would never see dormers on this style of house. 2) All of the dormers would be visible. 3) The attic space will be high enough to use a second story without the dormers. 4) The portion of the gable visible from the front is appropriate for a spindle style home. He is not as bothered by the height. Ms. Roberts responded t hat she got the message that dormers are bad. On the garage, Vice Chair Russell suggested lowering the pitch of the roof. Mr. Roberts said that an 8/12 would provide storage. Vice Chair Russell said that the proportion of walls and roof was backwards on the garage, you want taller walls and less roof. Chair BJ Bowen stated that they needed a simple fence and that it would be less maintenance than a wood fence. He agrees with Staff on the front doors. Ms. Roberts asked about the shutters. Vice Chair Russell said that they should choose a functional shutter and make them out of real wood. He said that they likely had shutters on the house and it would be keeping with the integrity of the house. He continued that the posts are appropriate. Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to accept the offer of the commission to defer her application. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer the item to the August 8th agenda for the purpose of additional information and updated drawings. Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded the motion passed 4 ayes, 1 recusal and 2 open positions. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet will be emailed to the Commission. Guidelines Revision There will be a guideline Review public meeting next Monday at 2:30 in the Planning Office conference room. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:50 p.m. Attest: . ZI& Chair Secretary/Staff Date V u u �%ll Date Page 36 of 36