Loading...
HDC_04 12 20101 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 12, 2010, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower (out at 6:23) Randy Ripley Loretta Hendrix (in at 5:43) Members Absent: Vacant position City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Vernon Scott Rick Berry Peggy Ferrara II. Approval of Minutes March 8, 2010 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of March 8, 2010 as submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 open position. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: April 12, 2010 APPLICANT: Vernon Scott, OneBanc ADDRESS: 500 E 6th Street COA REQUEST: Fence along 6th Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 500 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lots 1-12, St. Clair Horizontal Property Regime” Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The St. Clair apartments were built between 1910- 1920 and are of the Craftsman style. The 1988 Survey lists it as a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. PROPOSAL: The proposal is to add a gate/fence along the 6th Street frontage between the wings of the building at the property line. The gate/fence is proposed to be 6 feet in height. The 9’-6” double gate will be centered in the space and will be set back from the property line and the proposed fence by 18”. 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 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state under Site Design 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 struc ture. 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. 4 The plan of the fence location and plan is shown in the sketches to the right. The fence will be located along the sidewalk in the same plane as the front of the building. The gates will be set back 18” from the front gate. The guidelines state that wood fences in the front yard should be no taller than 36”. The proposed fence is 6’ tall. However, it is in line with the existing walls of the building and will be transparent as opposed to a solid wood fence. The rhythm of the street edge will be reinforced. The height of the fence will be slightly higher than the concrete banding on the building and will be in scale with the two-story building. The details of the original fencing have been incorporated into the new fencing without duplicating the fence exactly. The design of the fence is shown on the following page. The proposed fence and gate will mimic the existing fences on the site with an added element of the finials on the top and more vertical square tubing in the top. The new fence will be painted black. The gates, which are different sizes, will have a security lock on them with a keypad for entry/exit. The posts will be 3” square iron posts with ball caps. Location of the fence and gates Plan of the fence and gates. Existing south (6th Street) elevation 5 Detail of fence elevation. Detail of fence elevation. 6 Existing railings on first floor. Existing railings on balcony. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: April 12, 2010 Chairman Marshall Peters explained that with only three commissioners present, it would take all three voting in favor of the application for it to pass. If the applicant wished to defer, it would not count against their number of deferrals. The applicant wished to proceed with the COA at this hearing. Staff, Brian Minyard, made a short presentation to the Commission concerning the item. Notice was properly given and approximately one half of the return postcards were given to the Staff. Mr. Vernon Scott, the applicant, spoke of the improvements that are being made to the building, of which most were items of deferred maintenance. They are adding an on - site laundry and a security gate for residents. He stated that h e has requested the height of six feet in reference to the proximately of Fowler Square. He described the gate as being designed not to be an eyesore. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if it was aluminum or iron. Mr. Scott sated it was aluminum. Chairman Marshall Peters asked about the electric keypad. Mr. Scott stated it was a 1300-pound magnetic lock with keypad. 7 Commissioner Randy Ripley asked it was to be painted black. Mr. Scott replied yes. Commissioner Ripley asked about the sizes of the ga tes. Mr. Scott replied that they were two sizes of gate, one that would be stationary most of the time but used when a tenant was moving in or out. Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff if they had heard from any residents. Mr. Minyard stated no. She asked if Staff had access to the police reports. Mr. Minyard stated no but that the issue of Fowler Square is on the radar screen of the City Manager’s office and neighborhood groups. Discussion occurred concerning Fowler Square and activities that occur there. Mr. Scott stated that the units were a neat layout and that the gate is the last key. He stated that they were going to put the units back on the market. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the units had additional access other than the front. Mr. Scott replied that all units have rear access. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Wiedower seconded ant the motion passed 3 ayes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 8 Other Matters: Enforcement issues Staff noted that there were not any enforcement issues to present to the Commission at this time. Certificates of Compliance Staff noted that the spreadsheet was emailed to the committee. The numbering system was explained (HDC09-001) is the first action for the calendar year 2009. Mr. Minyard stated that he was instructed to add this to the agenda every month. Dunbar Survey Update Staff has talked with Andre Bernard concerning the contract for the survey. Chairman Peters asked that a letter be written to ask Mr. Bernard to finalize the contract or start with the next consultant. Commissioner Wiedower asked when the money was received by the city and if there was a deadline to spend the money. Mr. Minyard stated that Ms. Spigner said at an earlier meeting that if a substant ial amount had been spent, they could take longer to spend the rest of the money. Debra Weldon added that a resolution must be taken tot the city board before a contract can be signed because of the contract amount. Discussion continued about the Central High NR district and possible expansions of the NR district. Loretta Hendrix entered the meeting at 5:43. Preservation Plan Subcommittee Meeting times were discussed on the preservation plan implementation subcommittee. Commission Hendrix stated that Tuesdays and Thursdays were good for her. Commissioner Hendrix stated that she had met with Philander Smith about three weeks ago to submit a proposal for a strategy for including students for implementation for the preservation plan. She also noted that she attended a weekend meeting on the NSP2 project. A petition has been written that has the HDC reviewing plans of the NSP2 projects. Discussion ensued about the scope of the NSP2 and the petition contents. It was determined that she was not speaking for the HDC in the petition and further discussions ensued on when a commissioner can speak for the commission as a whole. Work Plan Mr. Minyard stated that there were only three items left on the work plan. Debra Weldon spoke concerning item #14. She stated that the Little Rock Board of Directors had adopted a Code of ethics, Ordinance # 17,050 and in that ordinance; it states that the HDC commissioners were covered. Since the Board of Directors has already adopted one, the individual commissions could not adopt one of their own unless given approval by he Board of Directors. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the ordinance was in the orientation package. Mr. Minyard responded that if it were not, it 9 would be. Commissioner Ripley asked if anything was in ethics code of ethics that would supercede or conflict with the city ordinance. Ms. Weldon stated that the beginning of the NAPC ethic stated that it could be adopted as a personal code of ethics as long as they do not conflict with the ordinance. She stated that the Commissioners should refer to the Ordinance first, then the NAPC code if they wish. Debra Weldon spoke concerning item #18. Mr. Minyard stated that he distributed a handout earlier to the commissioners. Ms. Weldon stated that she has rewritten the section and organized it differently. Discussion centered about the difference between charging the applicant versus the commission on the deferral. Bylaws can be waived if necessary on a case-by-case basis. There was a discussion about the ninety-day maximum of deferrals. The issue of notifying the neighboring property owners with the second deferral was discussed and proposed to remove from the Bylaws. Ms. Weldon stated that she would check with the city attorney before that occurs. Chairman Peters stated that if notification has not been met, the item cannot be heard. Commissioner Hendrix asked about the Applicant’s Deferral, number 2. It was explained that if an applicant needs to provide more information or did not get the mailing done on item, etc, this covers those situations. If an item is legal added, and the applicant never does his notices, then that would be a dismissal of the item. Commissioner Wiedower left the meeting at 6:23. Ms. Weldon noted that the bylaws will be discussed at one meeting and then voted on at the next meeting per the bylaws. Mr. Minyard spoke concerning item #20. He stated that Staff’s opinion was to leave the five existing positions as is and add two at large positions for a total of seven. Chairman Peters preferred that the two new positions be property owner/residents of a national register district other than Mac Arthur Park historic district. Discussion continued that property owner resident means that they live in the district and own property in the same district. Discussion continued about having renters possible to be on the commission. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff would like to clarify the positions so that each commissioner can only fill one position on the Commission. The definitions of some of the positions were clarified. The final consensus decision was to add two commissioners that own property in a national register district and live on that property other than a local ordinance historic district. Mr. Minyard stated that he would package all of the changes from the work plan together and present them back to the Commission except for the renotification on the second deferral and dismissals. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present. VI. Adjournment The meeting ended at 7:00 p.m. Attest: Clhai &A-tni� Secretary /Staff 10 mo"i I ZO/ Date (0 I-D Date