Loading...
HDC_05 14 20121 of 13 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 14, 2012 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Mark Brown Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley (in at 5:25) Loretta Hendrix Chris Vanlandingham BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Deborah Willhite Emile Rowland Katherine Matthews Leslie Peacock Katherine Alice Matthews II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Toni Johnson to approve the minutes of April 9, 2012 with the correction of striking Tony Bozynski as an attendee. Commission BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 absent (Ripley) and 1 abstention (Wiedower was not present in April). Commissioner Mark Brown owns property within 150’ of each of the applications tonight and will be recusing himself from both votes. He left the meeting at this time. Notice requirements were meet on both 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 2 of 13 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: May 14, 2012 APPLICANT: Judge Alice Lightle ADDRESS: 614 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 614 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 2, MacArthur Place Addition, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This lot is a vacant lot. It is considered "Non- Contributing" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The application for a Fence will enclose part of the lot that faces Rock Street. The existing fence will be moved to the east. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 8, 2007, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for the construction of a new house. This house was never constructed. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Currently, there is a fence that starts at the western edge of the garage and goes north across the lot of 614 Rock (a vacant lot). The proposal is to move that fence 54’ to the east, align the fence with the western edge of the house at 618 Rock, and then go north to connect with the fence already erected at the north side of the property line. The proposed fence will be near the back of the property. It will be a 6’ tall fence with a pedestrian gate to access the rest of the property at 614 Rock. One shared driveway serves all three properties: 614 Rock, 618 Rock and 617 Cumberland. 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 13 Aerial view. The Guidelines state on page 66: 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. Staff believes that the proposed fence is in conformance with the Guidelines. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment in support of this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: May 14, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the fence that was approved recently was the fence that was across the shared driveway. Mr. Minyard stated yes. Deborah Willhite, an owner of the property, stated the reasons for moving the fence was for more area for the dogs. There are no plans for anything else at the time. Commissioner 4 of 13 Wiedower asked if it was to the midpoint of the house on Rock. Ms. Willhite said that it was not, it was to the back corner of that house. Mr. Minyard stated that there was a letter of support on this item form Conner Limerick, an adjacent property owner. Katherine Matthews stated she was in favor of the application. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, reminded the Commission that in the case of five or less commissioners present, that the applicant is offered a deferral. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham offered a deferral to the applicant, but she wished to hear Commissioner Wiedower’s question. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the fence was to be relocated or portions of it to be reused? Should it be in the rear of the lot since there is not a structure on that lot? Commissioner Wiedower encouraged the applicant to install shrubbery to make it less conspicuous. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 absent (Ripley) and 1 recusal (Brown). 5 of 13 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: May 14, 2102 APPLICANT: Katherine Matthews ADDRESS: 621 Cumberland and 308 E 7th COA REQUEST: Replace Fascia boards and cover in aluminum; New aluminum gutters; Iron Fence along street with gates; Replacement vinyl windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 621 Cumberland and 308 E 7th. The property’s legal description is “The south half of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 41, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built around 1920. The 2006 survey form states: “This twentieth century apartment structure exhibits many Federal style details including roof shape and slope and entrance elaboration.” Both structures are considered "Contributing Structures" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is to Replace Fascia boards and cover in aluminum; New aluminum gutters; Iron Fence along street with gates; and to add Replacement vinyl windows. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Replace Fascia boards and cover in aluminum: The Guidelines state on page 50-51: 2. Retain the Visibility of Original Materials The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or the alteration of features and spaces that 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 13 characterize a property shall be avoided. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #2) The application of synthetic wall materials, such as metal and vinyl siding, has long been discouraged by preservationists because the placement of these materials may seal the wall and cause underlying wood to rot. If existing rotted wood is not removed, the structural integrity of the house is at risk due to unseen progressive decay. Even the claim that artificial siding never needs painting is questionable, as paint companies now sell paint specifically developed for aluminum siding. The application of artificial materials also covers up character-defining details of a building. Sometimes ornamentation is even removed to facilitate the new application. 2a. Artificial Siding Policy As stated above, the use of artificial siding on historic structures within the Historic District is discouraged, as it is not an original building material. Each individual case will be determined on its merits but with certain considerations: • the historical and architectural significance of the structure; • the visibility from the street; • the significance of neighboring structures; and • the treatment of architectural details and fenestration. For more information, refer to the Artificial Siding Policy, Appendix I, and section for suggestions of acceptable new building materials on additions. 3. Maintain Original Materials Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials, shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken in the gentlest means possible. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #7) Exterior wood surfaces should be maintained through regular painting (or staining, if original.) When paint removal becomes necessary, it should be done by scraping, heat (heat guns or plates), or chemical methods, never through sandblasting, high-pressure water, or other abrasive methods. Exterior masonry surfaces, bricks or stone, should be maintained by proper; cleaning and repointing. Showing rot on fascia boards Rot on fascia boards 7 of 13 The “Artificial Siding Policy” is attached at the end of this Staff report. This proposal is to replace the rotted fascia boards with the same size boards and then cover them with metal siding on the exposed faces. The owner has stated that this will reduce maintenance on the buildings. The proposal is not to cover the large louvers on the gable ends with metal, nor to replace the molding above the louvers on the gable ends. Those gable ends will still require painting and maintenance as before. As stated in the guidelines, the addition of artificial siding should be carefully considered before application. New aluminum gutters: The Guidelines state on page 50-51: Gutters: Boxed or built-in gutters should be repaired rather than replaced if possible. For hang-on application, half- round gutters are recommended. Downspouts should be located away from significant architectural features on the front of the house. The use of gutters, flashing, and downspouts should provide enough drainage to avoid water damage to the structure. The new gutters will match the existing gutters, with the exception that they will be seamless. Downspouts will be located where they are presently. The existing gutters need painting. Iron Fence along street with gates: The Guidelines state on page 50-51: 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. 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 fence proposed would match the fence installed immediately to the north at 617 Cumberland. It is 40” tall, instead of the 36” tall as recommended in the guidelines. There will be pedestrian gates at the sidewalks and a drive gate to the east. Western façade of 308 E 7th Fence at 617 Cumberland 8 of 13 Replacement vinyl windows: The Guidelines state on page 52: 2. Windows: 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. Screen and Storm Windows: Screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in dark colors and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames. Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may also be mounted on the inside of windows. Half screen and screen or storm windows smaller than original window, are not recommended. The proposal is to replace the aluminum windows with vinyl replacement windows. The manufacturer is Anderson windows, Series 2000 single hung windows of fusion welded vinyl frames in white. The will feature flat muntins within the two panes of glass with a 6/6 pattern. There will be a half screen on the bottom. The quote does not include LoE2 or inert gas. The replacement windows are not Energy Star rated, according to the quote. Sections from the workshop items on Replacement Windows and Storm Windows: 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 View of an existing window without screen Source: California Energy Commission 9 of 13 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%. Basically, air seeps though 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. 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 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. Adding storm windows to existing windows is recommended in the guidelines. This can achieve a combined U-Value of 0.50. The new replacement windows as stated in the brochure will have a 0.48 U Value, but will remove the windows out of a “Contributing Structure”. Storm windows can be removed in the future, if desired. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment in support of this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Denial of covering Fascia boards with metal siding. (Replacing same size boards would be handled under a COC.) • Approval of replacement of gutters with seamless gutters with downspouts in same location as now. • Approval of iron fence with a 36” maximum height. • Denial of Vinyl Replacement windows. A building permit must be obtained for any improvement over $500.00. COMMISSION ACTION: May 14, 2012 Chairman Chris Vanlandingham made the offer to the applicant to defer her items since only five commissioners were in attendance at this time. There was a discussion on what a substantially different application would be. Ms. Matthews, the applicant, voiced her desire to hear the item at this time. 10 of 13 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission outlining the Staff recommendations. He continued that this is one application and that the application may be amended by the applicant during the meeting. There was a letter of support from Conner Limerick. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the last survey and the date. Commissioner Randy Ripley entered the meeting at 5:25. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked about the age of the latest survey (2008). Commissioner Randy Ripley asked about the number of buildings in this application. Katherine Matthews, the applicant, made a brief statement to the commission and stated she was willing to work with the commission. Chairman Vanlandingham asked to discuss the items in detail, one at a time. He introduced the fascia board portion of the application. Commissioner Wiedower stated she was curious about the last time the fascia boards were repaired or painted. Ms. Matthews said that they were painted four years ago, but not replaced at that time. Commissioner Wiedower asked what kind of lumber was used when they were replaced years ago. Ms. Matthews was not sure what kind, but that they did not use treated pine. Ms. Matthews asked if the commission would let her use Hardie board for the trim work. Chairman Vanlandingham said that the Commission was familiar with Hardie products. Ms. Matthews stated that she was willing to go with Hardie board products for the replacement boards. Commissioner Ripley asked how many linear feet of fascia board replacement she was looking to replace. She stated that she would maintain the wooden louvers and the “crown molding”. Mr. Minyard handed the Commission copies of the old surveys to look at to inform them in their decision. Ms. Matthews stated that she wants to replace all of the fascia boards, not just the rotted parts. Commissioner Wiedower asked fellow Commissioner Ripley if the felt that the Hardie board would be a suitable replacement material. Commissioner Ripley commented that cement fiberboard held paint, shape and dimension better. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she preferred the Hardie board over the aluminum. Commissioner Ripley commented that there were different textures to the Hardie board. Chairman Vanlandingham introduced the gutter portion of the item. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were to be seamless. Ms. Matthews said that she wanted seamless gutters and that they would be the same shape as the ones on the building now. Chairman Vanlandingham introduced the iron fence portion of the item. Commissioner Wiedower recalled a meeting of the iron fence that was approved next door and the small rise in the yard and the reasoning of having it 40” tall. Ms. Matthews stated that the fence is a long- term goal. Commissioner Ripley asked if there was a time limit on approvals. Mr. Minyard replied that it was open-ended. Ms. Matthews said that the fence was needed for visual security. Commissioner Ripley said that the issue was scale; it was not always security to the building, but more perception of security to the building. Commissioner Johnson asked if the fences would but up against each other. Ms. Matthews stated no, they would not. Ms. Willhite said that they had backed their fence off the side property line so that the meters could be read. 11 of 13 Commissioner Wiedower stated that with the separation of the fences and no berm in the yard, a 36” fence would do what the applicant wants to do with the fence. Chairman Vanlandingham introduced the windows portion of the item. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the windows in the building were the ones there when she purchased the building. Ms. Matthews said yes. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were painted shut. Ms. Matthews said no. She stated that she was having problems obtaining parts for replacement pieces. Commissioner Wiedower asked if a bid had been received on the windows. Ms. Matthews said she had a bid and added the windows to this application to save time of another application. Peoples Lumber gave her a bid. She said that she has been researching wood windows for another project, at about $800.00 per window. Commissioner Ripley asked if she had considered storm windows. Ms. Matthews said she had some before on a different site and they leaked. Commissioner Ripley spoke about performance of vinyl windows versus the appearance of other replacement windows that are more historical in appearance. Commissioner Wiedower spoke about HURD replacement windows that she put in her own house. Commissioner Johnson asked about precedence. Mr. Minyard stated that each case was considered individually, and that precedence was not set. Commissioner Wiedower also spoke about visible from the street windows and non-visible from the street windows. Mr. Minyard stated that windows that were not visible from the street would not require a COA. Ms. Matthews could replace some windows without a public hearing. If the Commission wanted to approach this subject of visibility and different quality of windows in different locations, the Commission would need to spell out specifically which windows are and are not visible from the street. Commissioner Ripley commented about the number of windows being a consideration. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix stated that when considering resale, the applicant should think about quality. Ms. Matthews talked about the quality of the existing windows, some are missing mullions, they are aluminum with single pane glass, the sashes are hard to operate, and she wants to do something more attractive. Commissioner Wiedower spoke to the longevity of wood windows and defined what a vinyl-clad window was. Chairman Vanlandingham told the applicant that all of the item will be voted on at one time and asked if she wanted to change any part of her application. Ms. Matthews amended her application to the following: • Fascia – the material will now be cement fiberboard (i.e.: Hardie Board) with same size and shape as the existing. Aluminum will not face the new boards. • Gutters will be seamless and will be same profile as the existing. Downspouts will remain in same locations. • Iron Fence will be 36” tall. There was a discussion between Staff and the commission that applicants can file an application for a substantially different application within one year of the approval of a COA. A substantially different application in this case would be for storm windows or windows of a material other than vinyl. An applicant can reuse the abstract list up to six months from when it was generated. • Ms. Matthews stated that she would like for the windows be withdrawn from this application. 12 of 13 Staff changed its recommendation to approval in light of the amended application. Staff reread the amendments to the application. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the amended application with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Johnson seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and one recusal (Brown). Other Matters There are no new enforcement issues to present to the commission. There was no Citizen Communication VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Attest: /,xz, -, � � - - - it r Secretary /Staff 13 of 13 7_ �— /Q Date Date