Loading...
HDC_03 12 20121 of 19 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 12, 2012 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Loretta Hendrix Chris Vanlandingham BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Members Absent: Marshall Peters City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ethel Ambrose Anncha Briggs Kwendeche Greg Hart Mary Hunt Steve Imitoff Joyce Matthews Vanessa McKuin Johnny Reep Rhea Roberts Ron Ross Page Wilson DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 2 of 19 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Ralph Wilcox ADDRESS: Central High Neighborhood COA REQUEST: Additional Documentation and Boundary Increase PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located in the Central High Neighborhood and generally described as part of the area bounded by 12th Street, Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, Roosevelt Road and Thayer Street. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “ Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 3 of 19 A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note 4 of 19 comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Additional Documentation and Boundary Increase for the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District. To quote the nomination: “This amendment seeks to add 57 contributing buildings to the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District and increase the number of contributing buildings within the district 590. It also contains a reevaluation of the buildings in the existing district based on a resurvey that was undertaken in the 2000s. The boundary for the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District will be expanded to the west side of Dr. Martin Luther King Drive between 17th Street and Wright Avenue. This amendment will also increase the district’s period of significance from ca. 1870-1954 to ca 1870-1961.” This Additional Documentation and Boundary Increase for the Central High School Neighborhood Historic District is a direct result of the survey work that was made possible by a CLG grant. This new survey will increase the umbers to a total of 934 structures and vacant lots. 586 will be contributing, 478 will be non-contributing, and 10 are individually listed. That brings the percentage of contributing to 55%, up from 50.5% in the original survey. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and that the properties embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses High artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association sent an email in support of the application as well as some phone calls from members of the area in support. Ethel Ambrose, a resident of the Central High School Neighborhood national register district, spoke in favor of the application and started with a quote from Elizabeth Coatsworth. She thanked persons for creating the national register district: Anne Speed, Sandra Taylor Smith, Brian Minyard and residents of the Central High neighborhood. Kwendeche, a resident of the Central High School Neighborhood national register district and Chair of the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association Historic Preservation Committee, read a letter of support from the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association, WANA. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham entered the meeting at 5:12. No citizens were present in opposition. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to support the nomination and Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded. The motion passed with a vote of six ayes and one absent (Peters). 5 of 19 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Arkansas Historic Preservation Office, Ralph Wilcox ADDRESS: 703 South Main COA REQUEST: National Register Nomination PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 703 South Main. The property’s legal description is “ Original City Block 8, lots 1 and 2, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “ Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 6 of 19 A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7 of 19 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the National Register Nomination. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) has initiated the nomination process for the Donaghey Building located at the corner of Main and Seventh Streets in Little Rock. This building is nominated under Criterion C and B. Criterion C addresses the innovative fireproof construction and its early skyscraper presence in the city. Criterion B addresses George W. Donaghey, the person who envisioned the building and closely supervised the construction of it. He was a building contractor, former governor of Arkansas, and an avid supporter of higher education. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion B and C for association with the lives of persons significant in our and past and that the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses High artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. There were no comments received concerning this application. Commissioner Wiedower asked if there were any proposed uses for the building. Mr. Minyard stated that it was stated for “redevelopment” without any further explanation. Vanessa McKuin, Executive Director of the Historic Preservation Alliance of Arkansas, extended thanks for the vote on Central High. She commented that the Donaghey building was placed on the HPAA’s most endangered list in 2007. She stated that she supported the nomination and hoped that it would be redeveloped. A discussion was held and decided that the building is vacant. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to support the nomination and Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded. The motion passed with a vote of six ayes and one absent (Peters). 8 of 19 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Three. DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Firehouse Hostel & Museum, Greg Hart ADDRESS: 1201 Commerce COA REQUEST: Window Replacement, Masonry Work, Fire Safety Door, Addition of Stucco to Building, Signage and Lighting, Fence, Removal of Dock, Addition of Deck PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1201 Commerce. The property’s legal description is “Lot 6 and adjacent street to east, Block 154, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The survey states: “This craftsman style firehouse has shallow roof slopes, multiple dormers, half timbering at gables and multiple casement windows. The use was changed when a new fire station was constructed. It was built around 1917. It was operational as a fire station until the mid 1960’s.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This property has a “Conservation Easement” on the exterior of the building that has been deeded to the State. AHPP, through it’s Conservation Easement Coordinator, monitors all improvements to the exterior of the building. Staff has been in contact with AHPP and has attended a meeting with the Hostel representatives, Parks, City Finance Department, and the State AHPP coordinators to work out what can be changed on the building. This application is for the following items: Window Replacement, Masonry Work, Fire Safety Door, Addition of Stucco to Building, Signage and Lighting, Fence, Removal of Dock, Addition of Deck. Some of the items listed above have been cleared as maintenance issues within the COC process. The items that the Commission will be reviewing are the Window Replacement, Masonry Work, Fire Safety Door, Addition of Stucco to Building, Signage and Lighting, Fence, Removal of Dock, and Addition of Deck . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 9 of 19 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: In August, 1999, permission was given to do roof repair to repair tornado damage. On April 20, 2011, a Certificate of Compliance was given to repair the brackets and exposed rafters on the building and some roofing repair and skylight with a Certificate of Compliance. Historic Postcard of Firehouse #2 showing north and east elevations with unenclosed porch on north PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Firehouse Hostel and Museum has applied for a grant of the restoration of four original windows in the main body of the building. The sashes of these windows have been removed and a single pane of glass had been installed some time back. The windows are to be replaced with true divided light 12/1 windows in wood. The windows are on the east and west facades on either side of the center door under the porches. The security bars will be removed. The replacement panes have lowered the header of the original window, but most of the jamb remains in place. The goal is to reuse the jams, headers, and sills as much as possible. If needed, due to rot or splitting of wood, replacement pieces will be milled to match. These are shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of page 1,7,9, and 10. Window Replacement Layout of pane arrangement 10 of 19 The Guidelines state on page 52: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. Masonry Work Various places on the building have had infill brick that does not match the original brick. There is a supply of original bricks on hand that can be used to replace the non-original brick. This repointing needs to be done with an appropriate mortar type as to not harm the brick. Other places need to have unnecessary caulking or spilled paint removed. These are shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of pages 2 through 10. The Guidelines state on page 57: Masonry walls of brick or stone should be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling. Professionals should perform the cleaning, using detergent cleansers or chemical agents. Care must be taken not to introduce moisture or chemicals into the building. Paint should not be removed if it is firmly attached to, and therefore protecting, the masonry surface. Brick should not be painted unless it is extremely mismatched from earlier alterations or cannot withstand weather. Repointing should be done with an original or historic compound, such as one part lime and two parts sand, which allows bricks to expand and contract. Portland cement or other hard mortar is not appropriate, because it can cause cracking or spalling. The appropriate mortar should also match in color, depth, profile, raking, texture, and width. Fire Safety Door The exit for the upstairs sleeping area will be exiting through the stairs on the north side of the building. To meet fire code, there needs to be a landing in front of the fire door and after the fire door in a straight-line path. To achieve this the applicant is proposing to place a fire rated door(s) in the north opening. This will result in raising of the floor in the stairway a total of one step and pouring a landing to effectively raise the sidewalk immediately outside of the door. AHPP has asked the doors to have true divided lights in a pane proportion to match the panes in the adjacent casement windows. They have also asked for a divided light transom over the door(s). The applicant has provided fire rated doors with this application but they do not meet the specifications of AHPP. However, it is not certain that doors that AHPP has requested will meet the fire rating standards of the fire code. Staff is prepared to work with the applicant, Building Codes, and the AHPP to select a door that will meet fire codes and is the most sympathetic to the structure. 11 of 19 These are shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of pages 1 and 8. Addition of Stucco to Building The front porch of the structure was enclosed. Compare historic postcard shown earlier in this report to page 1 of the “Photos Sheets.” It is unknown of the space above the casement windows in the enclosure was actually a transom window or not. The proposal is to convert the painted plywood above the window into a stuccoed panel to match the stucco on other parts of the building. The stucco would be painted to match the other. These are shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of pages 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8. The Guidelines state on page 57: Stucco should be repaired with the original texture. (It is inappropriate to remove stucco from any originally stuccoed surface or to add stucco as a major wall material to any building, which did not originally use stucco as the dominant exterior wall material.) Signage and Lighting The proposal is to add one piece of signage to the western lawn by Commerce Street. This sign is in the format as the other signs for the park. These are shown at the end of the report on “Typical Details” pages 1 and 3. Face of Sign with scaled model. Side view of sign with footing 12 of 19 Fence The proposal is to add iron fencing around the air conditioning condenser units to the north side of the building. They are need for anti- theft measures. Both options are metal with a black painted finish. The fence will contain only the condensing units. The applicant needs to propose a height of fence Fence with finials Fence without finials These are shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of page 3. The Guidelines state on page 57: Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Removal of Dock and Addition of Deck This is a non-original loading dock and is believed to have been added when Parks and Recreation had a commercial kitchen in the building. The dock is in bad repair and is a safety hazard to the users because of lack of handrails and deteriorating wood. The new deck is to be used by the hostel clientele. AHPP and HDC Staff are encouraging a different design of the deck so that it is not visually connected or physically connected to the building. NO handrail specifications have been provided as the floor plan is still in review. Staff is prepared to work with the applicant, Building codes, and the AHPP to govern exact size and placement and to select handrails that will meet fire codes and is the most sympathetic to the structure and site. This is shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants numbering system of page 11. 13 of 19 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this application from the QQA suggesting an ornamental iron door for fire door on north side of building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Final submittal of all materials and plans to HDC Staff and AHPP Conservation Easement Coordinator. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation to the Commission. He stated that there needs to be additional details on the door selection, fence height, and layout and details of the proposed deck. He noted that the portion to remove door and add window and brick has been removed form the application. They will paint the door a similar color of the brick. The design of the deck should be visually and physically removed form the building to avoid issues with the conservation easement. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked about any deadlines as to why this item is being heard tonight. Staff commented that they were confident about moving forward at this time. Ron Ross, Parks and Recreation, spoke concerning the application. He thought the hostel Arkansas group would continue to work with Staff and AHPP to finalize the plans. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the height of the fence surrounding the ac units. Ron Ross stated that the fence would be five feet tall and utilize the fence without the finials. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham suggested that they take one item at a time for discussion. He summarized each portion of the application and asked for questions from the commissioners. Windows Commissioner Wiedower asked if the windows were to be as the spec sheet included. Mr. Ross had conversations with AHPP concerning the windows. He said they would repair the jambs and replace with new sashes. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they are to be painted white. Mr. Ross said that the hostel group would be picking the paint color. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were single pane windows. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were considering storm windows. Mr. Ross said not at this time. Masonry Mr. Ross stated that they have original brick to replace the mismatched. Addition of stucco Commissioner Wiedower asked if it was drvyit or stucco. Mr. Ross stated it was real stucco to match the existing. Signage and Lighting There were no questions concerning these from the commissioners. Fence Mr. Ross stated that the fence would be 5 feet tall and be the option without the finials. He also stated it was to only enclose the ac units (with an added third unit). He continued that they would add landscaping around the fencing. It will have a gate for access to the units. 14 of 19 After discussion, it was agreed upon that the fence will not intersect the building at the stone window sills. North side elevation Fire Doors Commissioner Wiedower asked what or where the ”doors” on the stairs are now. There is a set of iron gates at the landing in the recess of the stairs stated Mr. Ross Mr. Minyard explained the fire code with landing spaces and why the doors have to be at the bottom of the stairs and cannot be where the gates are now. He noted the desire for security with the new doors. Commissioner Ripley is concerned with the look of the doors. He continued that he would trust Staff to come up with a solution to the doors. He also noted that glass in the door did not have to be wired to be fire rated. Mr. Minyard stated that AHPP will have to approve the doors chosen. Chairman Vanlandingham reiterated that AHPP will have to sign of on the doors. Commissioner Wiedower asked why the Commission was hearing this now instead of later. Deck Mr. Minyard asked the applicant to approach and confirm that the deck plan in the folder was what the deck plan was going to be. Mr. Ross said that the deck plan was correct and it was given to the commissioners to view. Commissioner Ripley asked about the height of the deck. Mr. Ross said it would probably require railing but would keep the deck as low as possible and detached from the building. Commissioner Ripley stated that if the deck was lower than 30 inches, it would not require a railing. Commissioner Wiedower asked what was in the area now. Mr. Ross stated that it was a grassy area. Commissioner Ripley stated that the Commission needed more information on the deck. He continued that over the years the building had suffered from inconsequential additions over the years. He supports getting it back to its’ original look, not just tacking things on the structure. Mr. Ross commented that he was just trying to get approvals on components that would be done now or in the future. Commissioner Hendrix asked if the deck would be stained or painted. Mr. Ross said it would probably be stained. Greg Hart, representing the hostel group, summarized that two issues need to be clarified: The fire doors and the deck. He continued that they wanted to be operating by Memorial Day. The selection of the doors will be based on the fire rating status. They did want lights in the doors, but cannot have full glass doors to match the ones on the ground floor. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they could separate out one or two of the items and come back in April. Mr. Hart stated he wanted to resolve some of the issues. Mr. Hart said that they would do the landscaping around the fencing by the ac units. He stated the deck plan would come later. 15 of 19 Commissioner Hendrix spoke about the options of framing members being made of steel versus wood. Mary Hunt, President of Hostelling Arkansas, spoke in favor of the application. She stated that they would like to open ASAP and would be willing to do whatever to preserve the building. Anncha Briggs expressed thanks. She also spoke of the fundraising efforts and the hostel being an addition to the city and the MacArthur Park area. Rhea Roberts, Executive Director of the QQA, is excited about the project and concerned different aspects of the application and particularly about the stucco above the windows and the fire doors. She stated that they would defer to the AHPP on the issue. Debra Weldon, City attorney’s office, clarified for the Commission, that part of an item cannot be deferred to a later date. If the applicant chooses to amend his application to withdraw part of his applicant, he may do so. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she was comfortable with most of the items discussed tonight except the fire doors and the proposed deck. She is comfortable with tearing the loading dock off. Mr. Minyard stated that if the applicant wanted to come back in April for the deck, there was time to get the legal ad posted. Concerning the fire doors, Mr. Minyard continued, that they go through the filter of the City with HDC Staff and Building codes as well as the AHPP conservation easement program. The AHPP will have the final say on the door design. There is a lot more exploration that will need to be done. The Commission would be deferring to the state on that design decision. Commissioner Ripley commented if the project would need to have a Certificate of Occupancy that would be another check on the fire safety issue. Commissioner Wiedower stated her concerns for Staff being compromised with another department of the City being the applicant. Mr. Minyard thanked her for the comment, but reminded that Commission that AHPP will have the final word on the door selection. Commissioner Hendrix noted that the Commission should be fair and that if the city was not the applicant; the Commission would probably not be having this discussion as long as it had been held tonight. Chairman Vanlandingham told the applicant that if the Commission has issues with one of the portions of the item, and it was denied, the applicant would have to come back to the Commission with a substantially different application. The offered the opportunity to amend the application. Mr. Hart amended his application to tear down the deck and come back at a later date to get approval of the deck plan. He did want to keep the fire doors in the application. Commissioner Johnson asked if a letter needed to be sent to AHPP stating their concern over the door. Mr. Minyard said that the AHPP will be apprised of their concerns. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as amended (removal of deck construction but including deck demolition) with the understanding that the doors be handled by Staff and AHPP. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with 5 ayes, 1 abstain (Hendrix) and 1 absent (Peters). 16 of 19 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Four. DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1414 Rock COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1414 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 49, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This application is for a wood fence in the rear yard and part of the side yard. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On August 29, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to Page Wilson for an infill house. This house is shown in later photos in this Staff report. On November 14, 2006, a COA was approved and issued to Page Wilson for five attached townhomes that were never built. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is for a five-foot tall fence to be located in the rear and side yards of the house. On the north side of the structure, the fence starts between the gas meter and the air conditioning condenser and will run perpendicular to the structure and intersect the neighboring fence. On the south side of the structure, the fence will start at the front corner of the bump out, run south perpendicular to the house and stop approximately 10 feet shy of the side property line. It will run parallel to the property line towards the back of the property and then turn north to intersect the neighboring fence. A pedestrian gate will be installed at the walk to allow access from the parking pad to the interior of the fenced area and the house. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 17 of 19 The fence will be constructed of horizontal 1x4 pine boards with 4x4 posts. The fence is to be five feet tall. The applicant amended his application; only the graphics that show the final location of the fence is included in this report. On page 66 of the Design Guidelines, they state: “Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. “Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall; 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 house. “Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72”), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls.” This fence is generally in compliance with the guidelines except the fence on the south side of the house starts closer to the road than the halfway point of the house. It does start at a logical point on the house and is only five feet tall instead of the standard six feet tall. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment from an adjacent property owner with questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Obtaining a building permit. Proposed fence with east (front) elevation Proposed fence with west (rear) elevation Photo of design of proposed fence 18 of 19 COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2012 Commissioner Ripley left the meeting at the beginning of this item because of a conflict of interest. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked if the applicant wanted to defer the item to the next month since only five of the seven members were present. Mr. Page Wilson stated that he wanted to hear the item that night. A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedower to approve the application as submitted. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix seconded and the item passed with a vote of five ayes and two absent (Peters and Ripley). II. Other Matters Regarding the Hostel item: Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she had confidence in Staff's ability to make calls on some of these issues, but she is not comfortable with Staff being put in apposition whent the City is the applicant. From this point forward, she would probably not be able to be supportive in situations like this. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham stated that if the AHPP had not been involved in the process, it would have been a much more difficult issue for him. Commissioner Hendrix stated that she wants to look out for Staff on items like this. Enforcement issues Staff does not have any new enforcement issues to report. Certificates of Compliance None issued since the last meeting. Dunbar Survey Survey work is done and AHPP is counting contributing and non - contributing structures. They are analyzing historically vacant lots pre 1950 Sanborn maps and vacant lots that resulted in a loss of a structure. The historically vacant lots do not count against the totals, but the remainder of the vacant lost count as a non - contributing resource. There was a discussion of what a historically vacant lot means. A nomination will still need to be written to nominate this as a district. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present at this time. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Attest: Secretary/Staff 19 of 19 Date Date