Loading...
HDC_08 13 20121 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 13, 2012, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Loretta Hendrix BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Mark Brown Members Absent: Julie Wiedower Chris Vanlandingham Randy Ripley City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Rhea Roberts Leonard Hollinger Benjia Hollinger II. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that she could not vote on the minutes because she was not present at the meeting. She stated that she would have to recuse on those minutes. No action was taken on the minutes at this meeting. Notice requirements were met on the application 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 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: August 13, 2012 APPLICANT: Leonard & Benjia Hollinger ADDRESS: 420 E 11th COA REQUEST: Replace existing privacy fence and add retaining wall along 11th Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 420 E 11th. The property’s legal description is “Lots 7, 8 and S 1/2 of 9, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house was constructed ca 1950. The 2006 survey form states: “This hipped roof version of the Modern Ranch style includes a classic revival porch and an attached carport.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. In the December 2, 2009 State Review Board meeting, Additional Documentation was reviewed which was to change the period of significance through 1960 for the District. That was approved by the NPS on January 21, 2010. This application is to replace the existing privacy fence and add a retaining wall along 11th Street. The fence will be installed in the current location as the existing, but will be taller with a lattice top. The retaining wall would be installed along 11th Street to level the yard to the higher level. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 14, 2010, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to replace his original windows with vinyl windows. On February 2, 1989, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to remove one story residence and construct new one story residence and rear guest house. Only the rear guest house was built of this plan. On June 23, 1988, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to demolish a structure. On October 26, 1981, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to erect an open carport canopy on the west side of 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 3 Existing view from southeast Existing east elevation Existing condition of fence Existing condition of fence PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66 and 67 of the Guidelines, it states the following 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the 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. 4 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. 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. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. FENCE: The proposed fence will feature a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence. The height of the fence will vary between 6’-4” and 6’-8” because of the slope of the land. The fence will start at the northeast corner of the house and extend northward to the property line. There will be a drive gate cut into the fence at the curb cut. This fence is very visible from the Commerce Street side. This fence is located in the rear yard, but has street visibility because of the corner lot. Research into fencing types in the 1950’s have not been conclusive as to what the prevalent style of fence was with a ranch house. At the end of this report are some images from a Sunset Book on fences published in 1951. However, since it is uncertain what the prevalent style should be, it is safer to install a simpler fence. A replacement of the fence as is, would be in Staff’s opinion, style neutral. This application will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance. RETAINING WALL: The proposed wall will be parallel with 11th Street on the property line and extend the entire length of the grass area. The grade behind the wall will be brought up to the top of the wall and have grass as the groundcover. The wall will be split faced block as shown in the photos on the next page. They will be in the plain gray color. The wall will be broken to accommodate steps up the slope from 11th Street. The wall will be tapered to fit the slope at the eastern and western end of the wall. Currently, the ground slopes ups to a plateau, upon which the house sits. The following photo on the right represents what the wall will look like. The photo on the right show alternative colors available. Proposed fence 5 The Guidelines state, as quoted above, that the addition of retaining walls is discouraged in the front yard. However, in circumstances, the walls are permitted when the materials match the materials of the building. That would imply a brick retaining wall or at the least, a block wall that matched the color of the brick. Also, if using block, the mortar could be dyed to be the same color as the block to disguise the nature of he block. There are not any retaining walls visible in the immediate vicinity of this application. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Install block retaining wall with block color that matches brick on house with grout that matches block. 2. Replace fence with same style fence that is currently there with an average height of up to 6’ tall. 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, explained to the applicant that they were being offered a deferral because of only 4 commissioners present for this hearing. After approaching the podium, Mr. Leonard Hollinger, the applicant, decided that he would take the deferral offered to him. A motion was made to defer till the September 10, 2012 hearing by Commissioner BJ Bowen and was seconded by Commissioner Loretta Hendrix. The motion to defer was approved with 4 ayes and 3 absent (Vanlandingham, Wiedower and Ripley). Split face block foundation Additional colors of block with cap stone shown V. Other Matters Enforcement issues Mr. Minyard explained that 909 Cumberland and 307 E 9th Street was currently in probate court and that he was monitoring the situation of the probate items. After it leaves probate, we should have a solid owner to work on the enforcement. COC spreadsheet Mr. Minyard will email the COC spreadsheet to all commissioners. 420 East Ninth Street 420 East Ninth Street needs to be taken off the agenda. Our legal Staff has figured out a way to handle that situation. Time limits on COA An intern this summer worked on this spreadsheet and it will be presented to you at the September hearing. The Commission can decide in September if this will be a workshop issue or discuss it in the meeting. Citizen Communication The citizen in attendance declined to make any comment at this time. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn by Commissioner BJ Bowen. The meeting ended at 5:15 p.m. Attest: E Date q- f (D - /--z- Date