Loading...
HDC_01 09 2017Page 1 of 23 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 9, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair Dick Kelley Vice Chair Ted Holder Toni Johnson BJ Bowen Jeremiah Russell Lauren Frederick Members Absent: Open Position (Property Owner Resident) City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Mark Brown Jill Judy Ed Sergeant Approval of Minutes A motion to approve the minutes for December 12, 2016 as corrected (correcting the spelling of Commissioner Russell’s last name) was made by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner BJ Bowen. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and one open position. Chair Dick Kelley will recuse on items 1,2 and 3 of tonight’s agenda. He left the room at 5:02 and vice Chair Ted Holder chaired the meeting until he returned to the meeting. Notices requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was posted on the internet and emails to interested citizens to inform them of the agenda being posted online were sent. 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 23 DATE: January 9, 2017 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Porch Restoration PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Porch Restoration to replace the porch per pictorial evidence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. Location of Project Page 3 of 23 On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. 2006 Survey east (front) elevation East (Front) elevation Existing south elevation Existing north elevation PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant wishes to reconstruct the porch that was originally built on the house according to pictorial evidence. On other applications, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are used. However, this project requires the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Restoration to be used. The manual The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, is available at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-guidelines.pdf It states on page 117: “Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” Those ten “Standards for Restoration” are as follows: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property’s restoration period. Page 4 of 23 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period 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. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Also, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Rather than maintaining and preserving a building as it has evolved over time, the expressed goal of the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring Historic Buildings is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and most significant—time in its history. First, those materials and features from the “restoration period” are identified, based on thorough historical research. Next, features from the restoration period are maintained, protected, repaired (i.e., stabilized, consolidated, and conserved), and replaced, if necessary. As opposed to other treatments, the scope of work in Restoration can include removal of features from other periods; missing features from the restoration period may be replaced, based on documentary and physical evidence, using traditional materials or compatible substitute materials. The final guidance emphasizes that only those designs that can be documented as having been built should be re-created in a restoration project.” Furthermore, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Most Restoration projects involve re-creating features that were significant to the building at a particular time, but are now missing. Examples could include a stone balustrade, a porch, or cast iron storefront. Each missing feature should be Page 5 of 23 substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Without sufficient documentation for these “re-creations,” an accurate depiction cannot be achieved. Combining features that never existed together historically can also create a false sense of history. Using traditional materials to depict lost features is always the preferred approach; however, using compatible substitute material is an acceptable alternative in Restoration because, as emphasized, the goal of this treatment is to replicate the “appearance” of the historic building at a particular time, not to retain and preserve all historic materials as they have evolved over time. If documentary and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate re-creation of missing features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project work.” The house was moved to its current location sometime between 1987 and 1913 according to the Sanborn maps. The earliest photo available dates to 1890’s (see sheets P1.0 & P1.1). Historic photos have guided the work of the architect and applicant to recreate the porch. The porch will be built as close as possible to the photo that is included in the handouts. It is on page P0.0 through P0.3 of the handout. The front door will remain. The posts are square posts with beveled edges and applied trim. The brackets include sawn brackets with trefoil cutouts and “Organic brackets shown on page P1.2. Page P0.2 shows the turned spindles that are to be used in the reconstruction. The porch roof will be metal and sloped with no gutters or downspouts shown. The pitch is not noted and will probably be seen from the ground. On page P0.3, it appears that the porch will be a wood porch that is 10’ deep. Test pits were dug to establish the original location of the porch. New steps and sidewalk will be installed. Proposed Front Elevation submitted Nov 23, 2016 Proposed Side Elevation submitted Nov 23, 2016 Page 6 of 23 The reconstructed porch, as described in the application documents, fulfills the standards as written above. Historic photos of brackets Historic photos of door hood and spindles Historic photos of porch NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have any questions of Staff. Commissioner Dick Kelley left the meeting at this time. He would have to recuse from the hearing since he owns property within the area of influence. Mark Brown stated that Ed Sergeant has drawn plans as close as possible from the original photos. Jill Judy stated that they wanted to return the structure to the original grandeur. Commissioner Ted Holder asked who supplied to original photo. Ms. Judy replied that Tony Curtis had supplied it to them. The house has similar architecture to other houses on the block. Commissioner Toni Johnson was pleased that they took the time to do the research, drawings, etc. She was glad that they were taking on this project. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that the porch was pretty but it did not relate enough information. He had questions on materials and construction. There was a discussion of the roof of the building. He continued with additional questions. What was the trim to be made from? What are the proportions? Why were these details not submitted with the application? Ms. Judy said that their architect, Ed Sergeant, will draw up the templates and to build the brackets when construction starts. Commissioner Russell said that the majority of his questions Page 7 of 23 deal with the materials, size, scale, proportion, and things specified in the guidelines. He wanted more detail in order to make a decision on this item. Ms. Judy stated that she respected where Commissioner Russell was coming from but they did not want to spend the additional money on all of the detail architectural work before gaining approval from this Commission. She asked that Commissioner Russell trust them to do right on the construction of the porch. Mr. Brown stated this was something that they think is exactly like the original, but do not have the original plans. They request some leeway in construction. Commissioner Russell says that his questions relate to the materials, size, and proportion. He does not have enough information to make a decision. The Chair asked Staff if they were comfortable with the submittals. Mr. Minyard said that they provided a scalable elevation of the front and the side and provided a perspective. They did not list every single material to be used. But Staff thought it was sufficient enough to make a recommendation of approval. Mr. Minyard stated that this applicant has done both federal and state income tax credits before. He stated that it could be asked if this one is going through that process, but if they were, that would be an additional review that would ensure that the porch was correct. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they were seeking Federal and State income tax credits. Ms. Judy stated that they had been approved for part One and Part Two of the federal and State income tax credit. Ms. Judy stated that Commissioner Russell had let his opinion be known and with Commissioner Kelley having to recuse himself and being short one position, and Commissioner Frederick being new, she asked if they needed to withdraw the application. If they defer, is there any way to get approved with an additional commissioner in the near future? Debra Weldon stated that the bylaws provide for the Commission deferring for additional informati on if Commissioner Russell wanted to do so. Deferrals need to be submitted five days in advance per the bylaws. There was more discussion on procedure. Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that she felt comfortable voting on the item. There was a motion made by Commissioner Holder for the Commission to ask for a deferral of the application to the January 2017 hearing for additional information and for all of the Commissioners to have time to review the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Russell and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Kelley) There was a clarification by Debra Weldon that a majority of Commissioners present constitute a majority when voting on deferrals. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer the other two items to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. STAFF UPDATE: January 9, 2017 The applicant has submitted revised drawings that provide dimensions and materials for the project. On the “East elevation”, the new graphics give dimensions on the height of the porch floor, the height of the columns and overall height of the porch addition. It states that the ceiling of the porch will be breadboard. The columns will be 8x8” wood columns around steel tubes. Page 8 of 23 East Elevation submitted December 17, 2016 Page 9 of 23 Porch Plan submitted December 17, 2016 Page 10 of 23 North Elevation submitted December 17, 2016 The brick foundation of the porch will be painted to match the house foundation. It also provides General Notes. On the “North Elevation”, it gives additional dimensions on the porch and how it aligns with the existing house. The “Porch Plan” gives additional dimensions on the layout of the structure. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. Page 11 of 23 COMMISSION ACTION: January 9, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item to the Commission. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. Ed Sergeant, the architect for the project, made a presentation of the project stating that the design was based on pictorial evidence and archeology from dig pits to establish the original size of the porch. He also researched homes of the period in the neighborhood for similar details. He hoped that the additional information that was submitted was helpful. There were no questions of the Commission. No citizens were present to speak. A motion to approve the item as submitted with Staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Toni Johnson. The motion was approved with 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse (Kelley) and 1 open position. Page 12 of 23 DATE: January 9, 2017 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Demolish Wall PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is to demolish part of a concrete wall in the rear of this property. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. Location of Project Page 13 of 23 On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. Sketch of property lines Wall section nearest house Existing south elevation with wall to left Existing north elevation with wall to right PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to remove the portion of the concrete wall that is on this property that was once a part of a 4 stall garage structure. The Guidelines address demolishing buildings from the neighborhood. It does not address removing the remainder of parts of buildings. The roof structure and the doors (if it ever had any) were removed prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The 1998 aerial photo shows it without a roof or additional walls or doors. The Sanborn maps below show the changes to the area. The current concrete wall was not shown in the 1913 map. The 1913 and previous maps have different sheds of different sizes and materials on the site. The wall in question appears to be part of the out building that first appears in the 1939 Sanborn Map. It is labeled “A 4 Stalls Conc.” which translates to Automobile use, 4 stalls, and concrete construction. Since the last map of 1950, the structure at Page 14 of 23 900 Scott has been removed, the house at 113 E 9th has been demolished, the house at 908 burned last year and was removed, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete garage stalls on the site had been removed. 1939 Sanborn Map (current building is labeled Clinic) Detail of wall to be removed (rotated to match map to the right) This application is to remove only the portion of the wall that lies within the property of 908 Scott Street. The wall sits within inches of the property line. If the project scope is to return the house and grounds to a pre-1913 look, it would be appropriate to remove the concrete wall. The wall does provide security of sorts from the property at 908 Scott and the properties on Main Street as it is a visual and physical barrier. The ultimate use of the 113 E 9th property will solidify the argument to remove the wall. Demolition of this wall was not included in the demolition of the house at 113 E 9th. That house was demolished during the week of November 28, 2016. A deferral to a later hearing to add the remainder of the wall to this application would resolve the issue of the wall in total. That would require re-notifying the property owners. 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 demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. Page 15 of 23 STAFF UPDATE: January 9, 2017 No additional information was submitted on this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: January 9, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item to the Commission. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. Vice Chair Holder asked a question on the permits. Mr. Minyard stated that it was just a matter of increasing the amount of the building permit that they already had. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked the applicant why they had not asked to remove the entire wall. Mr. Mark Brown stated that they had not added demolition of the wall to the house demolition at 119 E 9th at the time of that application. They did not want to add extra items to that application. He continued that he did not have a formal presentation but would answer any questions that they had. No citizens were present to speak. A motion to approve the item as submitted to remove a part of the wall with Staff recommendations was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen and seconded by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell. The motion was approved with 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse (Kelley) and 1 open position. Page 16 of 23 DATE: January 9, 2017 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Fencing on the property. The front yard fence will be a 36” tall steels picket fence. A 6’ wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the south side and start about 3’ from the front of the house on the north side. A 5’ wide gate will be at the front sidewalk. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. C. Location of Project Page 17 of 23 On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. East (Front) elevation Sketch of property owned by applicant Existing south elevation Existing north elevation (Scale figure is 6’ tall) PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to add fencing around the property. A 36” metal fence is proposed for the front yard and part of the side yards and a 6’ wood privacy fence is proposed for the rear and balance of the side yards. The guidelines on page 58 state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36” Rear yard fencing—72” Page 18 of 23 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. 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. The front yard fence will be a Montage II 36” tall steel picket fence by Ameristar with 1” square steel 14 gauge pickets with triad finials painted black. That fence will be placed on the property line and start on the south side of the house 28’ back from the existing front of the house. 28’ is approximately half of the total house length. It is half of that wall section. It will continue along Scott Street and then return along the north property line 2’ behind the existing front of the house. This will include a 5’ entry gate at the sidewalk that will lead to the porch. A wood privacy fence is proposed in the rear yard and the remainder of the side yards. This is a 6’ tall rough cedar fence prefabricated in 8’ long panels. The tops of the boards are dog eared. A 6’ wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the south side and start about 2’ from the front of the house on the north side. The wood fence will feature a 4’ wide gate on the south side of the house as well as a 4’ wide gate centered on the west side. The wood fence will include sections of fence that will be perpendicular to the house to totally enclose the rear yard. The wood fence on the south side and rear of the house follows the guidelines for fence placement. The wood fence on the north side does not follow the guidelines. This house sits 2.6’ (a little more than two and one half feet) from the property line. Part of the asphalt parking lot next door is on this property. The 2’ mark on the north side where the fence is proposed to start would enclose all of the north facing ground floor windows in the privacy fence area. The bottom sills of the first floor windows are approximately 6’ off the ground. See picture on page two of the report with the scale figure that is six feet tall. A six foot wood fence will not add privacy to the ground floor windows when the top of the fence is level with the bottom sill of the windows. It will keep persons 30 inches away from the house. A fence in that location could be an issue when the house requires maintenance. The fence would be creating a space thirty inches wide minus the width of the fence, rails and posts, approximately 24 inches wide. Page 19 of 23 The parking lot to the north is known unknown. Currently, the parking lot is rarely full. According to the owner, he has two spaces rented on a monthly basis. The parking lot could see more use if the parking across Scott Street for the apartments under construction is not sufficient. It could see more use for events (parties) at the apartments. A 6’ wood fence could diminish the effects of headlights shining in the windows when the cars are running and parked facing the building. Placing a three foot tall fence along this side of the house would in effect provide a ladder to access the windows on the first floor. Therefore, a three foot fence is not an option. Having no fence along this side of the house, but starting it at the break in the wall three-quarters of the way back would be an option to enclose the rear yard. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. STAFF UPDATE: January 9, 2017 No additional information was submitted on this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: January 9, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item to the Commission. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. The applicant Mark Brown stated that the location of the fence seemed like the normal place to put a fence. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked what are the circumstances that require a fence to be installed. Mr. Brown referenced the house versus the parking lot and that it was normal to have a fence between the house and a parking lot. Ed Sergeant, architect for the project, spoke for the fence in regards to the traffic in the area, that it defines the perimeter of the property and removes the a bility to cut through the front yard. The break in the height reinforces the back yard aspects. Vice Chair Holder stats that it happens a lot. Bumping the fence to the front to enclose hvac units was appropriate. He referred to 909 Cumberland. Commissioner Russell stated that in that case there are two houses on both sides and that it was less obvious. Commissioner Russell questioned whether a fence was needed on the north side. He would rather follow the guidelines and does not see a benefit of the fence other than keeping Lowes in Page 20 of 23 business. Mr. Brown said that it would keep people off the property. The fence would be easy to replace sections if cars ran into the fence. Commissioner Russell stressed that the rails should be placed on the inside of the fence. Mr. Brown stated that he wanted to create a secure area. A motion to approve the item as submitted with Staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Toni Johnson and seconded by Commissioner BJ Bowen. The motion was approved with 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse (Kelley) and 1 open position. Page 21 of 23 The Commission took a break at this time. When the meeting resumed at 5:37, Chair Kelley returned to the meeting. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had no new items to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet will be emailed to the Commission later. Broadway Street – Safe Street Project Ed Sergeant, resident of the Governor’s Mansion Historic District made a presentation of the Safe Street Project’s future project on Broadway. The project would consist of a road diet with the four lane road being restriped to three lanes. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented on the spreadsheet of vehicular accidents that highlighted Broadway Street south of I-630. Commissioner BJ Bowen asked what type of accidents that they were? Mr. Sergeant said that he did not know the breakdown of the accidents. A police officer did attend these accidents. Mr. Sergeant stated that people speed above the posted speed of 35 miles per hour. Broadway is a divider of the Governor’s Mansion neighborhood into east and west. Crossing one lane at a time is safer on a three lane road that a four lane. The Fire Department uses the center lane for faster response times. Chair Dick Kelley asked about bike lanes. Mr. Sergeant stated that the Master Street Plan shows bike lanes for Broadway. There was a discussion on bikeways or bike lanes. These could be used for as such because the skinnier lanes help slow the speed of the cars. Commissioner Holder asked if they could be called fog lanes. Mr. Sergeant said that in some parts of the country they are. Commissioner Johnson stated that there are many beautiful structures on that street and people speed along there. She asked if he had explored medians. Mr. Sergeant stated that Arkansas Highway and Transporting Department (ATHD) moves stripes around a lot. They will look at medians at a later date. Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if he was familiar with the street in front of the racetrack in Hot Springs. They have flashing lights foe pedestrians. Mr. Sergeant said that they may look at traffic crossing signals in Phase II. The next part of the presentation focused on Phase II. He showed a historic postcard with a median in Broadway with tropical plants. Commissioner Bowen asked if there would be increased traffic on Broadway after construction starts on I-30. Mr. Sergeant stated that the hope was that Broadway has only a moderate increase during construction. Commissioner Bowen suggested flashing pedestrian crossing lights and noted problems with the new bike lane at 7th and Center Street. Mr. Sergeant said that the stripping would be identical to the stripping on Main Street in layout. Traffic may increase on the road, but the speed decreases. Page 22 of 23 Commissioner Holder stated that Chester Street is better now that it is stripped this way rather than four lanes as it used to be. Mr. Sergeant stated that when people perceive it to be a slower speed and people drive slower and are more courteous. Commissioner Johnson hopes that the road diet may spur more residential on Broadway. An arterial street is different to live on than a destination street. Vice Chair Holder stated that a four lane road encourages commercial and spoke of the grand homes in the area. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if they were voting on two options. Where would the medians be placed? Mr. Sergeant stated that the medians would only be in the middle of the block. Commissioner Bowen stated that he lives on Spring Street and turns left onto Broadway in the morning time. He believes that it may become harder to do so after the restriping. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell said that road diets are not a new thing. Studies are clear that this works to lower speeds and that turning should not be that difficult with the lower speeds. Mr. Sergeant stated that he did not know if there will be public hearings or not. AHTD want the City to request the restriping. The City has asked for Public Comment. Commissioner Russell stated that he was a big fan of road diets and that they work. Commissioner Johnson stated that they could be undone with just restriping if that was needed. Vice Chair Holder stated that they are safer and should enhance the neighborhood and quality of life. Mr. Sergeant stated that the Commission would be voting to support Phase I of the presentation tonight, only the restriping. There was discussion about the language of the Resolution, and Commissioner Russell recommended that it be left the same. Commissioner Johnson asked to edit the text form 4 to 3. Commissioner Russell asked that if the same presentation was made to all , why change the text of the Resolution? Vice Chair Holder said that if the commission supports the concept of Safe Street, there was no need to change the language. A motion was made to approve the Resolution as written by Vice Chair Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Russell. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and one open position. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:18 p.m. Attest: -1-1 K L� Chair & Mwl'&c Secretary /Staff 3-- /-7 Date �3 -I5 -(I Date Page 23 of 23