HDC_08 08 2016Page 1 of 19
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, August 8, 2016, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
Toni Johnson
Rebecca Pekar
Dick Kelley
Ted Holder
Members Absent: Open Position (Property Owner)
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Brennen Wells
Greg Roberts
Stephanie Roberts
Rhea Roberts
Matt McClure
Cathy McClure
Alysia Wells
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2016 meeting as submitted was
made by Commissioner Toni Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The
motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a note that all items have completed their notices.
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 19
DATE: August 8, 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. A.
Location of Project
Contributing / Non-contributing map
Page 3 of 19
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 4 of 19
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 5 of 19
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 6 of 19
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 7 of 19
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 Timberline
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 8 of 19
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 9 of 19
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:
1. 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 10 of 19
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 that 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.
STAFF UPDATE: August 8, 2016
Staff requested AHPP look at the proposed drawing as submitted originally along with the staff
report for all of the proposed changes. Staff asked if the proposed changes would make the
house non-contributing. The response from Ralph Wilcox of AHPP was: “We would prefer for
the proposed design to not include the dormers and to also lower the roof height on the back
section. However, the ultimate decision does lie with the HDC.”
The applicant has submitted new drawings for the house and garage. In an email dated
7/22/16, Ms. Roberts stated that they removed the dormers on both buildings and lowered the
pitch on the garage roof to an 8/12. The pitch on the main hose roof remains the same as
originally proposed. She stated that they will order the working shutters in wood and use
original styled hardware to mount them. She did not provide any drawings or specifications on
the metal fence.
Page 11 of 19
On the main house, Staff believes that the removal of the dormers will lessen the mass and bulk
of the rear additions to the house. It would still be better if the pitch of the roof in the back was
adjusted so that the ridge of the new roof would be at the same height as the original ridge of
the house. This would make the addition not be visible from the front of the house.
Staff believes that the 8/12 pitch roof on the garage is more appropriate. This will lessen the
scale and not overpower the site.
Staff believes that operable wooden shutters are appropriate to the house with the design as
shown above. These would need to be attached with working historically accurate hinges.
With no further information to review on the fence, Staff recommends denial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the fencing and approval with the following conditions
on the remainder of the items:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: August 8, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, noted that Commissioner Becky Pekar was recusing herself from the item
and left the room. He then made a presentation of the item with all changes made from the last
hearing. Vice Chair, Jeremiah Russell clarified that the recommendation was for the new pitch
being visible over the top of the front of the house.
Stephanie Roberts, the applicant, did review the options of the roof. She prefers the original
pitch of the roof but brought both ideas to share. She added that she was not able to find a
metal fence and would like to take that off of her application. She stated that she had lowered
the pitch of the garage.
Commissioner Toni Johnson wanted to discuss the roof pitches. She thinks the new plan is
better but would not want to support something that would make it non-contributing. Vice Chair
Russell asked Commissioner Johnson how a gambrel roof was appropriate for a Victorian
home. She stated that it was unusual, but it did allow leaving more of the older fabric in place.
The conversation continued between the two discussing if the addition in the back becomes
larger than the front, if it should be visible, the character of the home when viewed from the front
and what would be seen from the street to the side.
Commissioner Dick Kelley stated that he was against the gable showing over the top of the
house because the house never had it to start with. He would support a roof that did not show
from the front of the house that would be of a lower pitch. Ms. Roberts said that she did not
believe that she could agree to that without her architects input. Commissioner Kelley asked if
she had to have the 12/12 pitch.
Vice Chair Russell stated that the house is a gable front end and front with two sets of double
gables. The addition that they have proposed is appropriate to the house where some of the
additions currently on the house are not.
Commissioner Toni Johnson worries about when the house will be resurveyed and if it will still
be contributing. There was a discussion on that the emails said and what they did not say. She
said that she thought that AHPP was suggesting not having the gable on top of the house that
was visible from the front of the house.
Page 12 of 19
Commissioner Ted Holder said that what was behind the house was not correct and were bad
additions. What is important was what is seen from the street. It was obvious to him that the
posts were part of the screened porch. If what is behind the house now is not appropriate, what
is the difference in replacing it with something else that is not appropriate? This would prohibit
the new roof poking out over the top of the house. He believes that there is more leeway with
things that are not visible from the street.
Ms. Roberts has looked at a lot of houses and this matches a lot for them. We want something
that is right, but unsure what the middle ground is.
There were no citizen comments.
Ms. Roberts amended her application to remove the fencing portion from her application. Mr.
Greg Roberts stated that he would like to get resolution on the issue.
Mr. Minyard asked Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, to explain the procedures for
expunging votes and she did.
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the item as amended (with the gable visible over
the roof visible from the front) and Commissioner Johnson seconded. The motion failed with a
vote of 2 ayes (Russell and Bowen), 3 noes (Holder, Kelley and Johnson), 1 recusal (Pekar)
and one open position. A motion was made to expunge the item and that passed with a vote of
5 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and one open position.
Ms. Roberts stated that she wanted to defer to the next hearing and a motion was made to defer
to the September 12, 2016 meeting and that vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Russell)
and one open position.
Page 13 of 19
DATE: August 8, 2016
APPLICANT: Matt McClure, Home Instead Senior Care
ADDRESS: 909 Cumberland Street
COA REQUEST: Fence, Sign and Parking area
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 909 Cumberland. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 3, Block 44, Original City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The Fletcher House, a single family structure was built
around 1900 and designed by Charles Thompson. The
2006 survey form states: “This two story hipped roof
Colonial Revival has the typical full front porch. A bay
window is set off-center on the front facade. The central
dormer, the classical columns and balustrade are typical of
this style.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for the installation of two types of Fence
around the property.
There is a separate application for a Revised Planned Residential Development (PRD) on this
site to allow for the placement of an office use on this property. This property was included in
the PRD for 901 Cumberland and the replat of the three lots. It will be heard at the Planning
Commission on August 25th. The Planning commission review will determine if the office use is
appropriate for this location and if the amount and location of the parking is appropriate. They
will also review the sign.
This application is for a Fence, Sign and Parking area. The fence is a modification of location
for a previously approved fence and the sign is new to the application. The parking is in the rear
off the alley.
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 14 of 19
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On July 14, 2014, a COA was approved and issued to
Mark Brown and Jill Judy for the installation of a fence for
a three foot white picket fence to be installed in the front
yard and a six foot privacy fence in the rear yard.
On July 14, 2014, a COA was approved and issued to
Mark Brown and Jill Judy for façade changes to the rear
portion of the building with window and siding changes.
On November 11, 2013, a COC was issued to Mark
Brown and Jill Judy for total rehab of the house.
On September 1, 1999, a COC was issued of front porch
repair.
On December 29, 1998, a COC was issued for a new roof
to be installed.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Page 58 of 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.
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.
Contributing – Non Contributing map
Page 15 of 19
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.
Existing North elevation Existing West elevation
The proposal is to install two types of fencing on the property. The first would be a 36” wood
picket fence surrounding three sides of the front yard from the street to three feet behind the
main body of the house. This would also be installed on both the north and south property lines.
This is shown in black on the sketch below. There will be a three and one half foot wide gate in
the front picket fence at the sidewalk leading to the front porch steps.
The second type of fencing will be a 72”
privacy wood fence around the back yard
extending on all three sides the back and
side yards starting at three feet from the
front of the main body of the house. This
fence will not enclose the parking area in
the rear of the house that is accessed from
the alley. This fence is shown in red on
the sketch.
The guidelines state that the six foot tall
fence should start at the midpoint of the
house whereas this one is requested to
start at three feet from the front corner. On
the north side, if the fence were installed at
the location requested, three quarters of
Proposed parking area
Page 16 of 19
the front corner window would show because if the
height of the window itself and the height of the window
off the ground. If the fence were placed midway on the
house, it would be located past the stairway window to
the back of the house. The stairway window is
recognizable as the window that is between floors.
Therefore, if the fence was placed where the guidelines
state, only the front corner window would be outside of
the six foot fence on the north side.
On the south side, the neighboring house has a six foot
fence near the rear of the house. The fence could be
placed at the same point as the neighbor’s fence, or
could be placed at the inset of the structure about
fifteen feet behind the porch at the natural break point.
The fence between the parking area and the house will
be three feet off the back porch steps. The fence will
run north/south parallel to the house and alley. There
will be a pedestrian gate to access the porch and
sidewalk.
On page 61 of the current guidelines, it states:
C. PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND PAVING
Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic
neighborhood as possible.
2. Commercial, Office, and Institutional Parking: When houses or buildings are
used for commercial, office, school, church, apartments, or other institutional use,
parking should be located in rear yards. If this is not possible, parking may be in a
side yard but located to the rear of the front wall of the structure. Fencing or
shrubbery should screen the parking area. Parking lots between buildings should
align edge screening with the front façades of adjacent buildings and the side
property lines. Parking areas should be surfaced with gravel or concrete, not
asphalt, aggregate, or brick. For security lighting, please refer to Lighting on the
previous page.
The parking area is to be in the rear of the property accesses from the alley. The parking
surface is proposed to be gravel. Landscaped beds will be on the north and south property
lines.
On page 63 of the current guidelines, it states:
E. SIGNS
Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the
district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of
buildings.
South side of house 2014 photo
Page 17 of 19
2. Free-Standing:
Free-standing signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non-shiny
finish. The recommended size should not exceed six square feet in area. These
signs should be located in landscaped areas. All ground mounted (free standing)
signs in the UU zoning district must be approved by the Board of Adjustment in
addition to the Historic District Commission. Examples of appropriate signs are
illustrated to the right. For signs in the R4-A district, please consult Staff for further
information.
3. Materials for signs:
Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper,
or bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted
materials, or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building
materials.
4. Design of signs:
The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and
style. Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a
building, coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should
not be used.
5. Lighting of signs:
Lighting of signs should be from remote
sources, preferably from the ground aimed
directly at the sign and shielded from street
view. Lighting should not use visible bulbs,
internal sources or luminous paint.
The sign proposed will be constructed of wood
and feature a sandblasted background (shown in
purple) that will in effect make the letters and
logos appear raised. This sign will be placed in
the existing flowerbed on the south side of the
front yard. The face of the sign measures 4’8”
wide by 4’-10” tall for a total of 22 square feet.
This is above the six foot square size
recommended by the guidelines, but the size of
the sign is in keeping with the scale of the
building. The posts will be 6”x6” wood posts with
a finial on the top.
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 fencing permit.
3. Obtain a sign permit.
Proposed sign
Page 18 of 19
COMMISSION ACTION: August 8, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked
why staff was supporting the fence only being three feet back from the front of the house. Mr.
Minyard explained that a HVAC unit was going to be placed there and it being behind the fence
was preferable to being in front of the fence.
Matt McClure, the applicant, spoke about the differences in the previously approved fence and
the new proposal. He agreed to the lower sign height. Commissioner Pekar asked if the fence
was going to be three feet behind the main body of the house. Mr. Minyard explained the
differences in the previous application and the one under consideration.
There were no citizens speaking on this item.
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application as amended with a sign height of
6’-0” tall. Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1
open position.
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff reported one issue at 401 E Capitol Avenue with fencing.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was given to the Commission earlier in the agenda meeting.
Guidelines Revision
It was noted for the record that the guidelines will be updated and they will be published on the
web by August 22nd and will have a public hearing on them on September 12, 2016. Notices will
be mailed to all landowners the week of the 22nd. There was discussion on whether to have a
special meeting just for the guidelines. If there are a lot of edits recommended on September
12, the Commission may choose to vote on it at the October meeting.
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 5:52 p.m.
Attest:
12 '10(
Date
q -- (Z - zc , t (4-,
Date
Page 19 of 19