Loading...
HDC_09 10 20121 of 13 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 10, 2012, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Chris Vanlandingham BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Mark Brown Kwadjo Boaitey Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Leonard Hollinger Benjia Hollinger Lisa Cornwell II. Approval of Minutes It was announced that only the members present at the meetings for which minutes are to be approved should vote on those minutes. A majority of those present voting aye will constitute passage of the minutes. A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of July 9, 2012 as submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 3 recusals (because of being absent from the meeting). A motion was made by Commissioner Toni Johnson to approve the minutes of August 13, 2012 as submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 3 ayes (Brown, Johnson and Bowen) and 4 recusals (because of being absent from the meeting). Those members still on the commission and present at the meeting voted unanimously in favor of the approval of the minutes. Notice requirements were meet on both applications to be heard tonight. 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. A. DATE: September 10, 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 of 13 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 of 13 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 of 13 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 6 of 13 COMMISSION ACTION: September 10, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and noted that the notices were met for this item. Staff did the notices for this item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked exactly where the wall did lie, where the property line lies, and the location of the fence and the height of the proposed fence. Mr. Minyard said that the Staff would verify where that wall would be before installation. He continued to explain about the fence setbacks and how that determines height. Mr. Leonard Hollinger stated that he has lived in the house since April 1981. The fence to be replaced is 20 years old. He continued that the yard is tough to mow with the slope on the 11th Street side. He would like to install the wall to make it more “elderly friendly”. He said the wall would allow him to maintain his property for a longer period. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham commented that the applicant’s yard was meticulously manicured. Commissioner Wiedower commented that with the proposed height of the fence with the lattice on the top, that the applicant was sacrificing some privacy with the new design. Mr. Hollinger stated that they were aware of that but still preferred the submitted design with the lattice. On the retaining wall, Commissioner Wiedower asked what happens at the corner. Mr. Hollinger stated that the wall will start six feet back from the Commerce Street sidewalk. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if the top of the wall will step down. Mr. Hollinger said that it would step down at the corner and at the alley. Mr. Hollinger continued that the wall will feature a 4” cap stone. He continued that the wall would be 42” tall at the most. Commissioner Ripley asked if he was keeping the two stairs from 11th Street. Mr. Hollinger said yes. Commissioner Ripley commented on the fence along the east side. Mr. Hollinger said that he was also adding a fence to match on the left of the property by the alley and the carport. Chairman Vanlandingham stated that the guest house is wonderful but is hard to see with the 6’ fence. He continued that one of the reasons that the district has six foot fences is so the public can see things that are significant and he thinks that the guest house should be seen. Mr. Hollinger thinks that the guest house will still be seen with the new fence. Mr. Minyard stated that when the new sidewalk is poured, the new wall needs to sit on the applicant’s side of the property line; otherwise a franchise permit would be needed to construct a wall on the city’s right of way. Mr. Hollinger stated that the walk would be the same width as before. Commissioner Ripley asked if the sidewalk will be the footing for the new wall. Mr. Hollinger said yes and explained the built in footing to be poured with the new sidewalk. Commissioner Mark Brown said that the proposed fence appears to be the same height as the current one. Mr. Hollinger said that the new fence will be 4-6” taller. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked Commissioner Ripley if the foundation would be enough for the wall. Commissioner Ripley said that the detail of the wall is crucial, but it could work. He spoke of concern of the backfilling of the wall. Mr. Hollinger spoke of the deadmen that were sold with the wall and that they would be installed. Commissioner Wiedower went back to the fence issues and clarified that the lattice came out of the overall height of the fence. Mr. Hollinger stated he agreed and understood. There were no citizens that spoke concerning the application. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Commissioner Wiedower seconding the 7 of 13 motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Johnson) and 1 recusal (Boaitey as a new commissioner.) 8 of 13 DATE: September 10, 2012 APPLICANT: Lisa Cornwell ADDRESS: 900 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Addition of Driveway and Fence modifications PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 900 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 12 and the north 5.15 feet of Lot 11, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built around 1880. The 2006 survey form states: “This one-story Queen Anne Style house has a corner turret, decorative brickwork at the chimney and a large dormer set back slightly from the wall below and a Craftsman influence porch covers most of the front.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the “Addition of Driveway and Fence modifications.” The existing fence will be moved further away from the street, have a sliding drive gate installed and a concrete driveway will be poured. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 6, 2001, a COA was approved and issued to Tracy Simpson & Lisa Cornwall for the replace windows, trim and garage doors; construct privacy fence. On April 25, 2001, a COA was issued to Tracy Simpson & Lisa Cornwall for the replacement of the original metal roof of the structure with asphalt architectural shingles. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project 9 of 13 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 66: 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. 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 View to west along 9th Street Close-up of view to west along 9th Street View of fence across 9th Street View to east along 9th Street 10 of 13 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. The proposal is to move the fence back away from the sidewalk and install a sliding drive gate. Ti will be located four feet off the house. The fence will look much the same as it does now. The driveway will be concrete from the curb of the street to the fence. (The commission does not review the paving surface within the confines of the fence, since it is not visible from the street.) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two phone calls about the application of a neutral nature. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 4. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: September 10, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission and noted that the notices were met on this item. Chairmen Chris Vanlandingham clarified what parts of the application were in the item tonight: moving fence, creating gate and pouring driveway. Mr. Minyard said that there was also a curb cut that had been approved by Public Works. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the two story garage apartment was part of the property. Mr. Minyard stated that it was. Plan of new fence, gate and driveway locations. 11 of 13 Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the turning radius and if the backyard and could be accessed from the alley side on the southern property line. Lisa Cornwell, the applicant, stated she has owned the property for 10 years. She stated the fence and driveway will be an expensive project and has had her car vandalized and broken into. The carriage house has a double garage door, but it is not conducive to park in the garage with the new heat and air unit in the garage unit. She continued that she has a large backyard that could be utilized for parking. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked where she currently parked. She replied that she parks in the commercial lot across the street and it is lit at night. Chairman Vanlandingham asked what was keeping her from accessing the backyard from the alley. She replied that there was a big tree there and the renter parks there. Commissioner Ripley asked if the paving will go into the yard. She replied yes it would. He also asked if there would be an electric gate. She replied yes. Commissioner Wiedower stated that getting into the driveway would be tough. Ms. Cornwall said that Vince Floriani, in Public Works, told her to move the fence back for stacking space while the gate opened and for visibility. Chairman Vanlandingham asked about getting an estimate on moving the HVAC to use the other garage stall for her parking. He continued that it seems to be cutting up the lot. He commented that the fabric of the neighborhood gets torn. She commented that she was not comfortable with parking in the garage with the possibility of strangers being in the garage with her and still having to walk through the backyard. Commissioner Wiedower asked about an automatic garage door. She also asked if there was a door to access the backyard from the garage. Ms. Cornwell said that there was a door but it would have to be fixed. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the new fence would be in the same plane as the house, will it start at the back corner? Ms. Cornwell said it would be closer to the plane of the carriage house. Commissioner Wiedower asked if any landscaping changes would occur with the change in location of the fence. Ms Cornwell said that sod would be installed. Commissioner Ripley asked about the columns on the fence. Will the fence be stained or painted? Ms. Cornwall said that they will re-stain the fence and will have the decorative tops and caps as now. Commissioner Ripley also asked what the finish of the driveway will be. He suggested it that the impact of the concrete drive may be lessened with the installation of a wheel tracks or also called a ribbon driveway. Commissioner Johnson stated that she agreed that the item breaks up the existing fabric and she would be more inclined to vote in approval for a ribbon driveway. Mr. Minyard clarified that the applicant would have to amend her application to include the ribbon driveway for the item to be modified. Mr. Minyard continued that Public Works will ask for a solid apron from the sidewalk to the street. The only place the ribbon will be from the sidewalk to the fence. Ms. Cornwall clarified the fact that she had sought approval for a double driveway. Commissioner Ripley stated that there could be three ribbons to serve two cars. Commissioner Wiedower suggested that there are permeable grass pavers that could also mitigate the impact of the concrete. Chairman Vanlandingham spoke of the trouble with issues on items for safety and the balance between appropriateness. 12 of 13 Ms. Cornwall spoke of vandalism and the option of ripping up walkway in the backyard to accommodate deeper parking area in the backyard. Commissioner Mark Brown commented that she wanted everything to be the same, but there would not have been any cars, air conditioning, etc., at the time. She is not asking to change the structure, just the fence. He continued that if we do not have people living there, the houses will fall down. Commissioner Johnson commented that since the garage was already there, could there be modifications to the garage so that it could be used. Commissioner Wiedower continued with the question of parking in the garage. Ms. Cornwall stated that there have been people that have gotten into the garage with her. She would rather park in an open space where she feels more comfortable, instead of a garage. There was a question if the applicant was going to amend her application. The applicant amended her application to include three strips of concrete with a 16’ wide gate and a 16’ wide apron between the sidewalk and the curb. Mr. Minyard stated that he was not sure of exactly what width the strip were to be and that he would go measure several ribbon driveways and get back with the applicant. He believes that there is a common width to be found. There were no citizens present to speak concerning the application. Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve as amended and it was seconded by Commissioner Wiedower. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 2 noes (Vanlandingham and Johnson) and 1 recusal (Boaitey). III. Other Matters Enforcement issues Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the properties at Rock and Cumberland. Mr. Minyard stated that they were still in probate but he was checking on it. There was additional discussion concerning these properties. A COA was issued on 1010 Rock Street for repairs and some modification to the rear and others. The spreadsheet with COA's will be sent to the commissioners this week. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the lot next to Page Wilson's house. There will be an application on the October 2012 meeting. There was a discussion on looking at time limits on COA's at a work session or converting a meting that does not have any items. It was decided that the agenda meeting will start at 4:45 for the rest of the year. Citizen Communication Rhea Roberts, of the Quapaw Quarter Association, invited the commission to the annual membership meeting at the Joint in Argenta. Ken Trent will be speaking and the presentation of the preservation awards will happen. Free to public and it starts at 5:30 on October 10. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Attest: it Date Vi �,v CI, Secretary /Staff Date 13 of 13