Loading...
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