Loading...
HDC_02 10 2014Page 1 of 30 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 10,2014, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Randy Ripley BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Mark Brown Kwadjo Boaitey Rachelle Walsh Members Absent: Open Position City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Page Wilson Matt Snyder Doug Melkovitz Sharon Priest Rhea Roberts Jeff Horton David Anderson Robin Raveendran II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of December 9, 2013 with an addition to make note of an enforcement item for a fence at 11th and Scott that was not included. The item was seconded and passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position with text to be added later. Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 30 DATE: February 10, 2014 APPLICANT: Robin Raveendran, S & K Holdings, Inc. ADDRESS: 1023 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Replacement of Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1023 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot C and Lot G, Scott Street Square HPR addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built in the 1920s. The 2006 survey form states: “A 1920s structure designed in hipped roof subtype of Colonial Revival style. The heavily elaborated entrance and shutters are typical of the style.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. The applicant replaced windows without a COA. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. In early September, Staff was contacted by Mr. Raveendran bout replacing the windows in the units with Jeld-Wen tradition Plus Primed Wood Double Hung windows. An email with an attachment of the window detail was received on September 12, 2013. The applicant wanted the Staff to sign off on the replacement of the windows. Tony Bozynski and Brian Minyard visited the site and determined that the majority of the windows could be repaired and did not warrant replacement. This occurred between 9-12 and 9-19, 2013. 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 Page 3 of 30 On September 19, 2013, a letter was sent to Mr. Raveendran via certified return receipt stating that there was a façade easement on the property and that all changes had to be approved by AHPP. It stated that if the work amounted to maintenance, after AHPP’s approval the Staff would write a COC Certificate of Compliance. If it required replacement, Staff would process the COA Certificate of Appropriateness application. AHPP was alerted to this letter and given contact information. October 3, 2013, AHPP staff was alerted about a possible conservation easement enforcement issue on the site. Staff received a call from a citizen on December 19, 2013. Staff of HDC and AHPP met on the site that afternoon and witnessed the installation of all new windows on the ground floor unit. The applicant was called by the contractor and met with both staffs on site. A letter was sent certified return receipt to stop any further work on the site and to file for a COA. A COA was filed on January 8, 2014. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant proposed to replace the original wood windows in the house with Jeld-Wen Tradition Plus Primed Wood Double Hung windows. They are not clad but did arrive primed. These windows are a double paned glass with snap in wood muntins on the interior and exterior. There are aluminum spacers between the two panes of glass at the wood muntins. This simulated divided glass, but the windows are not true divided glass windows. The sills have been replaced as well as the jambs. Brick mold has been installed on some of the windows that does not match the existing brick mold. The applicant has offered to install matching brick mold on those windows. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation state: 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Page 4 of 30 Energy consumption and conservation are topics of conversation in many circles. While the desire to conserve energy is admirable, the preservation of historic building materials is equally important. One option to improve efficiency is to install storm windows in addition to the historic windows. That solution is a common practice in homes of this age and the historic fabric is still present. 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%. Courtyard view of building from 2006 survey. 11th Street elevation from 2006 survey. Source: California Energy Commission Page 5 of 30 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 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. Source: U.S. Department of Energy Page 6 of 30 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 the 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_co ver.htm. Toolbase Services has a list of manufacturers of interior storm windows at 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. Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A. Collingswood Historic District Commission Page 7 of 30 http://www.climateseal.com/preservation_window_inserts/preservation_window_i nserts.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. 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. 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 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. Page 8 of 30 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. This application for replacement of original windows is unique in the fact that there is a Conservation Easement on the property. Sometimes those are called Façade Easements. The State of Arkansas owns that Conservation Easement and they are currently deciding on their course of action. Arkansas Historic Preservation Program monitors those easements and has been in communication with the applicant regarding the window issue. Staff visited the site during mid-September 2013 and decided that the majority of the windows could be repaired. A couple of sashes were warped so that the lock on the meeting rail was not operable. Those couple of sashes could have been repaired or replaced under the maintenance provisions of the HDC, with AHPP approval since the property has a Conservation Easement on it. There were some sills that may have needed to be replaced, but that did not warrant replacing the entire window unit. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two comments regarding this application in opposition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral. The applicant has met with AHPP officials and the representative from the Attorney General’s office and has devised a work plan on the repair of the windows in the second floor apartment (G). Staff would recommend to defer this item for one month to see if the windows on the second floor can be repaired. COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2014 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation concerning the item. Staff is recommending deferral of this item until the March 2014 meeting. Staff noted that the City would send the notices out to the property owners notifying them of the deferral. Commissioner BJ Bowen made a motion to defer the item till March 2014 and was seconded by Rachelle Walsh. The item passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position. Parts of a wood window Page 9 of 30 September 19, 2013 letter to applicant Page 10 of 30 December 20, 2013 letter to applicant Page 11 of 30 January 27, 2014 letter to applicant Page 12 of 30 Photo #1 - Original 8/8 Window Photo #2 – New window to match 8/8 Photo #3 - Original 6/6 Window Photo #4 – New window to match 6/6 Page 13 of 30 Photo #5 – New window to match 9/9 Photo #6 – New window to match 9/9 Page 14 of 30 DATE: February 10, 2014 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1001-1007 McMath Avenue COA REQUEST: 3-story Mixed Use Development PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This application is for a 3-story Mixed Use Development. The first building will be at the corner of 10th and McMath with additional buildings to follow in subsequent COAs. The first floor will be commercial and the second and third floor will be residential. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 9, 2013, The HDC denied an application on this site for a three story mixed use building. This application is a variation on that application. The Sanborn maps below show what two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A large wrap around porch faced McMath and 10th and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the ‘Auto House” in the rear that fronted on 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. 2. Location of Project Page 15 of 30 Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the 1978 survey. It has been vacant since. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On December 9, 2013, The HDC denied an application on this site for a three story mixed use building. This application is a variation on that application. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014 but will not be sent to the Board of Directors for their approval until the HDC approves the plan. Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission 1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps Location of Proposed Building Page 16 of 30 prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be reviewed: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: Site Page 17 of 30 (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 71 under Section VII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures: C. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES New…construction… shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) Construction of new commercial buildings should follow the basic guidelines established in Section V: Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction. Of particular concern to commercial infill are the building orientation (aligning the storefront with neighboring structures); building mass, scale, and form; placement of entrances and windows, and building materials. All should be compatible with the commercial neighborhood. The commercial guidelines were included as a reference since the building is part commercial and part residential. The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS …related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated 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. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) …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. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10) New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) Page 18 of 30 New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction. The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the following criteria: • Architectural style • General design • General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures • Siting • Height • Proportion Page 19 of 30 • Rhythm • Roof area • Entrance area • Wall areas • Detailing • Facade • Scale • Massing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The cover letter states that this “building is a contemporary design; the first floor is commercial in appearance and use.” GENERAL DESIGN The Guidelines state on page 55: 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) This application is for a three story building to be located at the corner of 10th and McMath Streets. The bottom floor will house commercial uses and feature inset porches on the east and west side of the building. There are more buildings to be built on this site. Each of these buildings will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission before they are constructed. The Planning Commission has reviewed the site for a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) for the multiple buildings on one parcel. This item will be held from going to the Board of Directors for te zoning change until the HDC has approved the first building. MacArthur Park has few commercial structures in the district. There is a concentration of commercial buildings along Capitol Avenue in the 300 block; one at 614 E 6th; some in the 200 and 400 block of E 9th Street; and one at the corner of 11th and Cumberland. Little Rock, in earlier development history, had scattered small nodes of commercial in residential areas. Scattered commercial buildings from that period still dot the landscape in many parts of town. There are commercial and institutional buildings on that side of the park from 9th to 630. Currently to the north of the site, there are two restaurants (in prototype chain fast food architecture) and a gas station/convenience store in addition to a single family house and three apartment buildings. With the mix of those building and the few single family houses and apartments, the three-story mixed use building is appropriate. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES The Guidelines state on page 55: 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building Page 20 of 30 materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. The cover letter states that “The exterior is mostly M-Core Galvalume a low maintenance material, durable, economical, and moisture resistance product.” The wall sheathing material for the second and third floors is prefinished metal siding McElroy Multi-Cor or equivalent. This is corrugated metal. Galvalume is a trademark name for 55% Aluminum- Zinc alloy coated sheet steel. The color is Colonial Red. The link: http://www.mcelroymetal.com/content/products/display.cfm?product_id=25. This material has a high Below is a montage of photos of various buildings with wood and metal siding. 10th and Scott (205 E 10th/1003 Scott) and 5th and Appianway (2721 Appianway Street) have metal siding while 1001 Cumberland and 809 Rock have wood siding. Comparison of siding provided by applicant. The windows on the west side are a combination of 3’x5’ single pane vertical windows with 3’x1’-6” horizontal single pane windows, sometimes attached to the larger window, sometimes ganged together, and sometimes free-floating on the wall. There is also one 1’-6” square window. Between the two larger windows, there is a painted metal accent color panel as well as one on the south side of the building under a floating window that is part of the signage. The windows are in a non-symmetrical arrangement on the wall. The windows are specified as Anderson “100 Series” “Eagle” or equivalent. Here is a link: http://www.eaglewindow.com/_Products/Overview.aspx The “windows” on the ground floor are a 3’-4” by 10’ aluminum storefront window. The link: http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Storefront_Framing/07_Tri fabVG.pdf. Also on that ground floor elevation is a 7’x10’ twin wall polycarbonate wall panels. This will provide translucent illumination into the interior space. The color of the material comes in clear, white or bronze. No color was specified. The link is here: http://www.eplastics.com/Lexan_Thermoclear_Polycarbonate_Polygal_Multiwall_Sheet. For purposes of this report, the “twin wall polycarbonate wall panels” will be referred to as windows for the sense that they permit light to permeate the interior spaces of the building and at night, will allow interior light to be seen by persons that are exterior to the building. The function of allowing light to permeate back and forth is a main function of a window. Page 21 of 30 The entry door is specified as a solid “flush” (custom) door. It is assumed that this a flat door with no raised panels or glass inserts or decoration. The north side of the building features a more symmetrical arrangement of windows on the upper floors with ganged windows of vertical 3’x5’ single pane windows, 2’x5’ vertical single pane and scattered 3’x1’-6” horizontal windows above the larger windows, sometimes ganged and sometimes not. There are also 2’-0” square windows and 2’-x1’-4” rectangular windows. There are also aluminum store front windows in a vertical line connected by painted metal accent color panels in the center of the building that connects the first, second and third floors. The first floor is a combination of twin wall polycarbonate windows (6’x6’ and 3’x6’) and aluminum store front windows (3’x6’, 2’x8’, and 7’-8”x8’ windows). There is a painted metal accent panel between two of the vertical windows near the center of the building. The east side features 3’x5’ vertical single pane windows and a 3’x1’-6” horizontal windows attached to a larger window. There is also a 3’x2’ horizontal window beside a painted metal accent panel. The first floor features an aluminum storefront window of 3’x8’ unless it is required by code to convert that into a doorway. If it is required to have a door, it would be a Kawneer 350 storefront door as the front. There is also an aluminum storefront door and window on the southeast corner measuring 3’x7’ for the door and 2’-8”x8 for the window. The door to that is specified is a Kawneer 350 aluminum storefront entry. The link: http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Entrances_Swing/07_190 _350_500.pdf The south side of the building is comprised mostly of horizontal 3’x2’” windows, 2’x2’ square windows, and some 2’x5’ vertical single pane windows. In addition there is a 7’8”x2’ window on the western half of the building on the ground floor. In the center of the façade, there is a larger twin-wall polycarbonate window that is 8’-0” wide that has two windows floating in the space and an entry door at the first floor level. The glass windows are 3’x5’ and 1’-6”x3’. The door is 3’x7’ with a transom of 3’x2’ above. Typically historic windows are vertical in orientation, not horizontal slits in the wall plane. The window size and placement is not appropriate with the district, most notably the horizontal windows on the south, east, and west facades, polycarbonate windows, and the multi-floor polycarbonate window on the south façade. There are also painted metal accent color panels of contrasting colors on the walls. This is described as painted metal accent color panels: custom break metal over plywood. This is basically bending metal to fit the plywood panels prior to installing on the structure. Another material that is used only on the first floor is described as Painted Cement panel siding: James Hardie “Hardi-Panel” or equivalent. This panel system would give the appearance of large sheet panels without any battens to cover the joints. It comes in multiple colors. A color has not been specified on the drawings. Above, as the guidelines clearly state, the building materials specified for this project are not appropriate for the district. Commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in brick. Later one story commercial buildings in the 1950’s and 60’s were made of block (9th and Rock and 614 E 6th). The building at 9th and Rock, which had part of the building removed for the liquor store drive thru, was faced in brick to blend with the existing neighboring buildings even before the district was initiated. Page 22 of 30 The metal siding, when installed with a horizontal orientation, does give a horizontal shadow line as a result of the corrugations on the metal. This horizontal shadow line is a different scale than the lap siding that would have been installed on a wood frame structure. The metal siding shadow lines are much closer and smaller in scale than most wood siding shadow lines would be. Having two out of three stories clad in corrugated metal siding is not appropriate for the district. Signage: There are two signs for tenants on the north side of the building under the porch facing north. It is shown on the plans that it will be painted or vinyl graphic mounted on the window glass. The area specified for the signage is about 5’-6” wide and 10’ tall. As the tenants may change over time, it is Staff’s opinion that the Commission approve a location and maximum size for the sign as stated above and allow the change in text to occur without further COA solely for a change in sign text. There is another tenant sign on the north façade of the building. It is approximately 3’x7’ wide. The street numbers are larger than typical in the historic district. They border on signage instead of building identification as other street numbers do. The view that is shown in the west elevation will only occur when one is standing in a particular location because the lower part of the sign is 10 feet inset on the back of the porch and the top part is at the front of the building. SITING 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. The setback of the proposed building along McMath is 8’-6” off the property line and 5’-0” off 10th street property line. Add approximately 2’-6” to the inside edge of the sidewalk for the location of the wall. This building will sit closer to McMath than the Bylites building at 11th and McMath or the gas station convenience store at 9th and McMath. None of the current buildings are built to the property line. The setback along McMath is appropriate with the immediate area. Sec. 23-115 of the city ordinance states “No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished…” The ordinance states that “all stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving” shall be reviewed. The Guidelines on page 61 state: PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND PAVING: Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible. 1. Residential Parking: Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house, with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick Page 23 of 30 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. 3. Curb Cuts: Curb cuts should be avoided unless necessary to access new parking areas. The new curbing should be constructed to match the historic or traditional curb cuts in the district in size, color, materials, and configuration. Paving: The plans show four parking spaces on the south side of the historic house off a ribbon driveway. The driveway is comprised of 2’-4”’ wide concrete ribbons for the wheels and a 2’-4”’ wide grass strip in the center. Staff did research earlier for ribbon drives and found that the drive specified is similar to the average drive surveyed. There are also four spaces with 90° parking of the alley with a two foot concrete apron separating the alley from the gravel parking spaces. The parking area will be covered in 1/8” minus gravel. This is similar to pea gravel in size. Unfinished plate steel edging is noted to line the beds, it is assumed that this will line the gravel parking areas. The parking area locations are in conformance with the guidelines and no new curb cuts would be constructed. The center strip of the ribbon driveway is labeled as gravel or sod center strip. Dumpster pad enclosure: The dumpster pad enclosure is located on the southeast corner of the site with the maximum distance from the street as possible with access to the alley. The dumpster is to be screened with vegetation. The zoning ordinance requires that if vegetation be used a screening for dumpster areas, it must be mature vegetation to provide the same screening as a fence would at time of installation. HEIGHT The height of the proposed building is between the heights and widths of the Waffle House and the law school dorms. It is a three story building, a height that is not common in the district, but common on that block. Most structures are one or two story. However, in this area, the law school dorm is three stories, the law school is five, and the church/Bylites building is three. The scale of the building is appropriate with the immediate area, but not the district as a whole. The new building will not have a raised foundation. The foundation is appropriate with commercial structures in the district. The overall height of the building from the top ridge of the shed roof is 37’±. The height between the first and second floor is 12’. The difference between the second and third floor is 11’. This includes any structural members for flooring and ceiling. The actual floor to ceiling height was not specified. It is unclear what the third floor ceiling height is. The floor to ceiling heights are appropriate with the district. Page 24 of 30 PROPORTION The shape of the structure is rectangular and is compatible with the surrounding buildings. It is similar in shape to the Waffle House (at 908 McGowan) and the law school dorms (at 1016 McGowan) and between the two in size. The shape of the building is appropriate to the district. RHYTHM An entrance to the structure is at the corner of 10th and McMath. The building runs east and west, the same way as the original lot runs. The orientation is appropriate with the district. ROOF AREA The proposed building will have 4/12 pitch shed roof pitched toward the south. This roof shape with 3’ soffits is not common in the district on primary structures and is not used in the immediate vicinity of the project. This would make the shed roof 89’ long by 26’ wide. Historic commercial projects have shed roofs, however, they have parapets and the shed roof pitches to the rear (short side) of the building, usually with a more shallow pitch. The roof will be covered with “Pre finished metal roofing; McElroy Maxima 1.5 without gutters or downspouts. Galvalume (silver) finish was specified. The link for the roofing is: http://www.mcelroymetal.com/content/products/display.cfm?product_id=1. Typically, commercial structures would have parapet walls on at least the street facades. Commercial buildings in the 400 block of 9th Street, as well as the two other buildings in this block, have parapet walls with low pitch shed roofs. Staff cannot support the roof design as submitted. If a parapet wall was installed on the two street frontages at a height of 40’-1”, and there was minimal overhang on the east and south facades, Staff could support the roof. ENTRANCE AREA There are two main entrances to the building, one on the west and one on the east ends. There is an additional entrance on the south side of the building in the center of the building. The location of entrances is where they would have been in historic buildings. Many corner commercial buildings had recessed corner porches. Having a porch that goes the full width of the building is not a typical historical model. These porches are not porches in the sense that they are added onto the front of the structure, they are created by the subtractive process of removing space. There will be differing heights of 8’ and 10’ clearance on the porches. The “wraparound” covered porch that is on the west façade has a depth of 10’ along McMath and a depth of 5’ on 10th. The door is actually 22” from the front of the building. There is a similar porch on the east side of the building with a 4 or 5’ overhang and the door being 17’± from the end of the building. The location (distance) of the doors to the street is atypical for commercial buildings of the district. These porches are supported by painted 3” diameter steel columns at varying angles. There are three on the east and west. It is unclear by the drawing whether the area under the overhang will be paved. The porch height and depth are appropriate with the district. On the north elevation, there is noted a “site cast concrete stem wall and bench: 24” height to coordinate with foundation height of neighboring historic residence.” This bench is 7’-8” long.. WALL AREAS / FACADE The west and north side of the building will be visible from the street. The south and east façades of the building may be obscured by additional buildings to be built. The building is Page 25 of 30 somewhat divided into two divisional bays on the north and south façade. The north façade is taller than the south wall because of the shed roof. DETAILING 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The windows and doors will be trimmed out with McElroy 1” J-mold break metal trim. This trim work is small in scale. SCALE / MASSING The Guidelines state: 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. The height of the proposed building is between the heights and widths of the Waffle House and the law school dorms. It is a three story building, a height that is not common in the district, but common on that block. Most structures are one or two story. However, in this area, the law school dorm is three stories, the law school is five, and the church/Bylites building is three This immediate area of the district is not built to the same scale as the majority of the district. It has higher percentage of large scale buildings. The mass of the proposed building is appropriate with the immediate area, but not the district as a whole. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one email from the QQA stating: “It is clear that much of the proposed building complies with the guidelines for new construction. However, it’s unclear whether the entire project complies with the guidelines. If the applicant can adequately demonstrate how the building orientation, mass and scale, form and materials are appropriate to the district according to the guidelines for new construction of primary and secondary buildings, the QQA would support a Certificate of Appropriateness.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are elements of the proposed project (roof shape/lack of parapets and exterior sheathing materials) that are not compatible with the Historic District and Staff cannot support the application. Page 26 of 30 COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2014 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. At the end of the presentation, Staff clarified that the double negative in the Staff recommendation was indeed a typographical error, the recommendation was indeed denial. Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if the applicant had met with Staff. Mr. Minyard stated that they had met with the City Manager’s office and the Director of Planning. After further conversation, Mr. Minyard agreed that he had been in a meeting with the applicants. Matt Snyder represented the applicant in the presentation. He stated by asking staff where the term “blends” was derived from. Mr. Minyard stated that it was part of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder also stated that they had met with the QQA. Mr. Snyder made a presentation to the Commission that discussed the isolation of the site to the rest of the district, materials used, with a tour of buildings in the district. Concerning the example of the St. Edwards School building having a shed roof, Commissioner Bowen stated that building was built before the district was created and does not apply to the conversation at hand. Mr. Snyder stated that those buildings will be historic soon and should be considered as part of the fabric of the district. Mr. Snyder continued his presentation concerning the windows, bringing elements found around the district to this project and stated that he feels that this metal siding is similar to the wood siding. He said that the shadow lines and proportions are similar. Mr. Snyder showed a photo of a house clad in metal siding to show a good example of what could be done with metal siding. Commissioner Bowen asked if the house in the photo was in a historic district. Mr. Snyder said it was not in this part of the country and was unsure if it was in a historic district. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked if that is what they were proposing. Mr. Snyder said it was, even the color in red. Commissioner Rachelle Walsh asked about the corner boards. Mr. Snyder said that they would not be as wide as shown. The base of the building being in Hardie board takes the place of base conceptually. Photos of Capitol and Appianway were shown as an example of the material they are specifying as installed. Mr. Snyder discussed the definition of “similar” and described the project as similar to new construction, contemporary, and vernacular, using the vernacular style in the guidelines. Mr. Snyder continued that the shed roof was an abstraction of one-half of a gable roof form. He gave a definition of abstract and the building came from that abstraction. Mr. Snyder stated that the polycarbonate wall is one-half inch thick with air space between the layers. Commissioner Ripley asked about the Hardie board panels on the first floor. Mr. Snyder responded that they have a metal batten with score lines. Vice Chair Johnson asked about the yellow panels on the north façade. Mr. Snyder explained that they are painted metal accent panels and mimic idea of stained glass windows. Commissioner Walsh asked about the windows. Mr. Snyder responded that they are aluminum clad wood windows. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were operable. He replied that some are casement and some are awning type windows along with fixed windows. He also said that there are no muntins. Mr. Snyder said that he looked in the guidelines concerning roofs. The form of the building has a series of repeating windows. He showed perspectives of the proposed building. They split the windows on the south façade into square windows. The large polycarb window is a nod to Page 27 of 30 the Law School Building. He continued that the Secretary of Interior standard #3 and #9 are applicable and read each aloud. He showed Google earth images where the building had been inserted. Commissioner Ripley said that this was the most professional presentation that he has seen before the HDC. Vice Chair Johnson also noted it was a good presentation. She went over the reasons that the Commissioners voted no the last time. She stated that they must demonstrate why this is a different application. The use of the steel siding is still weighing heavily with her. She referred to the QQA letter. She discussed the finishes, brick, frame, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Mr. Snyder referred to the vinyl siding guidelines. Mr. Boaitey stated that he went through the guidelines and that vinyl was discouraged. Mr. Snyder commented that he thought that it was in reference to the furring out that takes place in the installation of the siding on existing structures. Commissioner Ripley commented that in the context of surrounding buildings, this building works here. When we read the guidelines, they blanket the entire district. Another way of looking at it is in context of the immediate area. Another factor is that we are developing the area and that has to weigh in to the decision. Vice Chair Johnson asked about the metal siding described as steel sheet coated with aluminum. Mr. Snyder said that the steel is painted in factory with zinc with a color. It has a 25- 30 year warranty. Page Wilson said it had a high SRI value meaning that it is reflective of the heat of the sun. Mr. Snyder said it had a matte or satin finish and is Kynar coated. Commissioner Boaitey said that the presentation was good. He said that he can see it is a good thing to put there. Vice Chair Johnson asked about the signage and dumpster screening. Mr. Snyder said that they were planning on putting in a green screening around the dumpster. Mr. Minyard interjected that the zoning ordinance specified that if vegetation was to be used as a screening device, that the plants at time of installation has to be the same height and opacity as a wood fence would be. He continued that it is better to nail down exactly what is in the application before the vote. Mr. Snyder said that they would prefer to do a vegetative screen. Mr. Snyder said that the signage would be a 2’x8’ on the north side and a 3’x5’ on the west side. Vice Chair Johnson asked if the size of the signs were an appropriate size. Mr. Minyard stated that they were and that Staff would prefer that the area of the signage be pinned down with the actual content of the signage to vary with the tenants since tenants could come and go. This would allow change without coming back to the Commission every time a tenant changed. Mr. Snyder said that it would be painted on or vinyl applied to the glass for the signage. Commissioner Mark Brown stated that the perspectives really helped. He still has problems with roof and siding on project. He commented that the siding on Jeff Horton’s house would be closer in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood. The gas stations mentioned earlier is to be demolished soon. There are not a lot of shed roofs in the neighborhood. He said that the red corrugated siding is more appropriate in a marina environment instead of here. He continued that we have seen corrugated siding and we immediately think of cheap environments where more sophisticated materials are not available. Mr. Snyder stated they were trying to leave cheap at the door and look at how it was applied. He thinks it is a great product in an area of not terribly high property values. To install Hardie board would be two Page 28 of 30 times the cost and to do brick would be 3-4 times the cost. Commissioner Boaitey said the metal siding is a material of the times and a material that is coming forth. Sharon Priest, Downtown Partnership and MacArthur Park Group, spoke in support of the application. She said that she had been told the area between the park and I-30 was not ready for development yet, but it was important to see development there. She spoke of seeing more retail and non-residential uses and referenced the 1954 fabric of the community and the devastation that I-630 had been on the neighborhood. Jeff Horton stated that the project fits the intent of the guidelines. The issues of the materials and the definition in the guidelines are hampering the use of new materials. He referenced the amendment to the Denver Colorado guidelines. He urged the City of Little Rock to look at other areas to use materials of our own time and new technologies too. He urged the Commission to update the guidelines. He said that the growth is coming downtown and that the City needs to provide a place for them to come that is affordable. He supports the application. Commissioner Ripley stated that the guidelines are just that, guidelines. The Commission has the latitude to consider other factors. Rhea Roberts, QQA, is in favor of the mass, scale, setback, and other aspects of the application but stressed that it is important to enforce the guidelines. She noted that it was important to specify for the record if they approve, why you did so. She thought they made a decent case for the horizontal siding. She also stated that the Commission needed to look at the guidelines for edits to the infill section. Commissioner Brown asked if the QQA supported the application. She did not have a comment on whether they supported the application or not. Commissioner Walsh spoke about the horizontal versus vertical application of the metal siding. She encouraged more discussion on the parapet roof. Mr. Snyder commented that he rejects the notion that if it is commercial that it must have a parapet. He showed buildings in the PowerPoint that are multifamily that have overhangs. He continued that if the pitch was lower, the only thing that would be seen from the ground would be the undersides of the soffits. Commissioner Brown asked if he had considered a gable roof. Mr. Snyder said that the gable does not fit in as well as the shed roof did. Mr. Wilson said that the gable roof was never considered. Mr. Snyder explored no overhang on a shed roof and a slope to the rear. A perspective was shown to the Commission that featured a roof sloped to the rear with a 1 in 12 pitch. Mr. Wilson said that he could do the parapet, but the pony wall required more insulation. The lack of a parapet reduces materials. He stated that he was afraid of a TPO roof over time. He can put metal below that line of the parapet. He said that it would be a tough time giving up the metal on the top two floors which is important to the feasibility of the project. David Anderson asked if they used a more simplistic metal on the siding. Jeff Horton stated that the material is not cheap for galvalume siding. He continued that the way they are using it removes the cheapness and provides less maintenance. Commissioner Brown commented that in other parts of the world, they use this material under thatch so that they would not have to look at it. Commissioner Brown stated that it is not whether it complies exactly with the rules but if the Commission votes yes. Commissioner Ripley respects but does not agree with Commissioner Brown on the contemporary material. Mr. Snyder said that historically, it was a bare material and may be part of the perception issue. Commissioner Ripley stated that he liked the shed roof for termination. Page 29 of 30 Vice Chair Johnson asked if there was another slide with another exterior material. The answer was no. Commissioner Brown said that the metal siding was not a material that he thought blended. Commissioner Bowen agreed with Commissioner Brown. Mr. Snyder stated that there are no other viable options other than metal from a financial standpoint. Discussion continued about the metal siding on Jeff Horton’s house. Commissioner Walsh commented that she was not familiar with the material. Mr. Snyder explained the material to the Commission. Mr. Wilson proposed the change on the parapet. He commented that the application was down to the siding material. He said he was not going to put Hardie board on the house. Commissioner Ripley said that he must make an amendment to the application. The application was amended to the roof with no parapet trimmed with required materials with the pitch sloped to the rear (east) of the building with a low slope with a gutter to a rain chain by Mr. Wilson. Vice Chair Johnson asked if the Staff was going to change its recommendation with the amendment. Mr. Minyard said that the amended roof would be more compatible but stated that the Staff recommendation was still denial because of the metal siding. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application with the amendment to the roof. Commissioner Boaitey seconded. Mr. Minyard interjected that if the Commission denied the application, they would have to vote to reconsider the application again if refiled within one year, like they did tonight. If it was deferred, the applicant could come back next month with revisions. He stressed that the Commission needs to know exactly what was in the application. Commissioner Ripley said that he was not going to withdraw or amend his motion. The vote was taken and it failed with 2 ayes (Ripley and Boaitey), 4 noes and one open position. The Commission then spoke as to why they cast the vote they did. Commissioner Boaitey said that it was a significant change and he liked the siding. He was okay with the prior roof, but earlier he could not get his head around the siding. Commissioner Bowen said that 2 out of 3 stories clad in corrugated metal is not appropriate. He agreed with the window and roof changes. He appreciated the presentation. Vice Chair Johnson voted no because of the metal siding. She would have been okay with the roof change. Commissioner Ripley voted yes. Commissioner Brown had hoped the discussion would have continued on the siding. He said that we are close to having something that is close. Commissioner Walsh appreciated the roof changes, but the horizontal metal siding is not appropriate. Commissioner Bowen asked staff to look at the guidelines for new construction. Mr. Minyard stated that the City would apply for funds to redo the infill guidelines that would involve bringing in a consultant in the next CLG grant. V. Other Matters Enforcement issues There were no new enforcement issues to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A new COC's was reported on 8th Street and a roofing job at 15th and Commerce. Staff said that he could get the Commissioners the spreadsheet. Citizen Communication Mr. Horton asked the Commission to find out how the rules can be changed in the guidelines. Mr. Snyder stated that the comments are beneficial to new applicants. A subcommittee review of the applications would be beneficial. Commissioner Ripley agreed to that they should tweak the guidelines but the Commission has wiggle room on interpreting the guidelines. Vice Chair Johnson said that they should take the pulse of the neighborhood in the guideline revisions. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:12 p.m. Attest: ha - - 6��x- %J Secretary/Staff Date 9D -11) --Z,0 14 Date Page 30 of 30