HDC_04 25 20111 of 17
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, April 25, 2011, 5:00 p.m.
Board Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
Members Present: Marshall Peters
Julie Wiedower
Loretta Hendrix
Chris Vanlandingham
Members Absent: Randy Ripley
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Tony Bozynski
Citizens Present: Deanna Jones
Mark Brown
Jill Judy
Scott Grummer
Cary 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 17
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: April 25, 2011
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1414 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: New Infill House
The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the April 11, 2011 agenda on February 22,
2011 via phone message.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of deferral.
COMMMISISON ACTION: March 14, 2011
A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to defer the application to the April 11,
2011 meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Randy Ripley. The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes.
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 is a vacant lot. The former building, The Warner
House, was demolished earlier.
This application is for a New Infill House. It is similar to a
traditional shotgun house with an addition or bump-out to
the south side. There is no separate garage proposed
with this application.
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 17
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions on this site were located with a search of the files.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
As stated on page 63 of the guidelines: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the
existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
1. Shape: The shape and footprint of the structure is compatible with the surrounding
buildings. Shotgun houses are not as common as they once were in the city, but are a
compatible shape for infill houses. This house features a “bump-out” or what would have been
an “addition” to the structure (if this had been an historic house) on the south side where the
entry is located.
2. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is approximately 20 feet,
which is slightly less than the adjacent buildings. The width of the building is compatible
although less wide than the adjacent buildings on that block face.
3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a 9/12 roof that is similar to the
structures in the area. The gable ends will be to the east and west. The latest submittal shows
the roofing material will be corrugated Galvalume roofing with exposed rafters. The roof will
have eaves that are four feet deep. (Zoning code allows for 30” overhang. See “Placement on
the Lot on page 4 for further discussion.) The building has a flat portion on the roof that is not
compatible with the neighborhood. There are other buildings in the area (namely apartments)
that have flat roofs, but those buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more).
Montage of street view
Proposed Elevations
4 of 17
The roofing material on the flat portion of the roof is proposed to be membrane roof with parapet
walls. No detail of how high the parapet walls are was given. An option to remove the flat
portion of the roof and to be more compatible with the neighborhood is to place a shed dormer
over the entry originating at the ridgeline as shown below by the red lines.
Optional shed roof over entry bump-out shown in red.
4. Orientation to the street: The orientation of the building is compatible with the
neighborhood.
5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: The
proposed building is not incompatible. The front door faces east onto the street. The window
on the east façade is an appropriate size. The windows on the south façade, on the entry
bump-out, are small square windows. However, these windows will not be readily seen when
the house to the south is completed. There is a window on the main body of the house on the
south. The three windows to the north will not be readily seen because of the house at 1410. A
window on the north side closer to Rock Street would be desirable. There is not a front porch
per se; it consists of two ramps approaching the door under the 4’ overhang of the roof. The
door appears to be flush with the wall, not inset.
6. Foundation height: The new building will appear to have a two to three blocks high
foundation of concrete block with natural finish. This height of the foundation is lower than most
historic homes in the area, but is compatible.
7. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is 10 feet and is appropriate.
8. Porch height and depth: There is not a front porch per se; it consists of two ramps
approaching the door under the 4’ overhang of the roof. The door appears to be flush with the
wall, not inset. No handrail detail has been shown; however, if it is shorter than 30” in height, a
handrail is not required.
9. Material and material color (if brick—closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if
frames –matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding):
The exterior material of the structure is 10” wide Hardie plank lap siding painted and 24” Hardie
panel board and batten siding. Trim for the house is noted as 6” Hardie trim painted. The
submittals imply a three tone color scheme for the paint.
The windows are listed to be either Pella or Anderson, metal clad windows, silver-gray finish.
Casements are 3’x6’ and the awning windows are 2’x2’.
Doors are listed as exterior grade wood, dark stain finish.
Gable vents are noted at 2’x1’.
5 of 17
10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner
boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size, The Hardie board trim around the windows
and doors is not incompatible with the area.
11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The proposal is to have a 25’ front
yard setback. The two buildings to the south have a 15’ setback and the two buildings to the
north have less than a 25’ setback. A 15’ front yard setback would be more compatible with the
block face. A 5’ side setback on the north and a 20’ side yard setback on the south are
proposed. The proposed eaves are 48” deep. Chapter 36-156(a)(2)a, states:
“Every part of a required yard, except as provided herein, shall be open from its
lowest point to the sky unobstructed, except for the ordinary projection of sills,
cornices, buttresses, ornamental features, and eaves, provided, however, that
none of the above projections shall project into a minimum side yard more than
thirty (30) inches.”
The north setback will need to be increased to 6’-6” to remove the requirement for a Board of
Adjustment hearing.
Walks to the structures were unnoted. The brick sidewalk on Rock was not ed to remain with a
new segment of concrete to meet the existing walk to the north. The Drive will be of 1/8” gravel.
No mention is also made of what the material is on the walk from the parking area to the house.
Exterior lighting will be recessed cans at the entries. With exposed rafters on the eaves, a
question arises on how recessed cans can be “recessed.” Mechanical units will be placed on
the north side of the structure. Guidelines suggest that they be placed near the rear of the
structure.
They are not requesting the following at this time: Signage, guttering on house, satellite dishes,
fences, gutters (except on entry bump-out), or photovoltaics.
Overall, the proposed house is compatible with the area with the exceptions of the front yard
setback and the flat roof.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtain building permit.
2. Reduce front yard setback to 15 feet.
3. Increase north side yard setback to 6’-6” or file for Board of Adjustment for variance.
4. Remove flat roof from structure and replace with shed roof originating at the ridgeline.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2011
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that since there were only three present and
that since Commissioner Ripley would have to recuse on the next two items, there would not be
a quorum to continue the meeting. Page Wilson addressed the commission and stated that this
was a financial distress for him. It was discussed that he had sought one deferral on his request
already. This would not count as one of his deferrals.
After discussion, it was decided that staff would try to set a called meeting for April 25, 2011.
Publication deadlines for the legal ad, and booking a room was discussed. Staff would contact
all parties present to inform them when the meeting was set. Commissioner Wiedower made a
6 of 17
motion to convene a special meeting as soon as possible, hopefully April 25, 2011.
Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent
(Peters and Vanlandingham).
COMMISSION ACTION: April 25, 2011
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission.
Commissioner Wiedower asked for clarification on the north side yard setback with the
difference of a 30” and a 48” overhang. Mr. Minyard provided clarification.
Page Wilson, the applicant, spoke to the commission. He stated that he was removing the
garage from the application (it was not supposed to be on this application), he was amending
the front yard setback to 15 feet and 10 feet for the north side yard setback. He showed photos
of other structures he had built to the commission. He stated the house was 16 feet wide on the
front with a bump out on the side, which is the living room. The bedrooms are on the front and
back of the house. He continued to describe the layout of the house and showed a plan to the
commission.
Mr. Wilson spoke of the overhangs and how that they might not be 48” because of the clearance
needed to open the casement windows. Commissioner Wiedower stated that if the windows did
not open, it would be problematic. She stated that the commission could not approve maybe,
that they needed concrete design decisions. Commissioner Wiedower asked the goal of the 48”
overhang. Was it a protective covering or aesthetic? Mr. Wilson stated that the eves were part
of architecture and design functions of sun and weather protection.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if they were flat of cathedral ceiling in the in the living room. Mr.
Wilson stated that there were 10’ ceilings throughout the house.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the trim around the windows and door. Trim was
not shown around the door. He stated that it was a concern of his. Mr. Wilson stated that the
front door did not have a window.
Mr. Wilson stated that the foundation was to be 18’ on the rear of the structure. He continued
that the lot was flatter than the other lots.
Commissioner Vanlandingham commented that there were many houses in the area with flat
roofs or almost flat roofs on the porches. He stated that he did not have a issue with the flat
portion of the roof. He continued and commented on the rafter tails. Mr. Wilson stated that they
would be cut horizontally and that would allow for window opening and protects the rafter tails
from rot. The rafters are to be 2x10”.
Commissioner Loretta Hendrix stated that the drawings were not detailed enough. Mr. Wilson
stated that there was not enough money for detailed drawings. Commissioner Hendrix stated
that they were not detailed enough to make a concrete decision.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the lap siding. Mr. Wilson stated that it was 10” lap
siding with 9-1/4 inch exposure. The board and batten siding will be 4x8 sheets with battens 24”
on center with a batten of 2-1/2 to 3”. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the siding configuration
was exactly as shown on the drawings. Mr. Wilson said yes it was. He continued that there
was a trim piece between the siding that is different color.
7 of 17
The foundation height was discussed and Mr. Wilson stated it should be three steps up to the
house in the rear.
Chairman Peters commented on the 15’ front yard setback. It was confirmed that the
application had been amended to change the setback to 15’.
Mr. Wilson stated that the windows would be Anderson brand with a grey anodized finish. The
trim color around the windows will be similar to the window color. The color s election on the
siding is very close to the colors shown on the rendering.
Mr. Wilson stated that the lighting would be different than the recessed light as shown on the
plan. He stated that the light would be similar to the light at 324 East 15th Street.
A discussion centered around if there were to be one or two downspouts. Two downspouts are
to be requested, but if only one is to be installed, it will be installed on the west side.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that one downspout on the rear would be preferred.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the siding on the north side between the three windows.
After discussion, it was decided that the siding would be flat as shown on the drawings.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that there were many opinions on new construction in the
historic district. When the HDC approves a design, the commission needs to know it be built as
approved. When changes are done in the field, the commission could end up with infill that is
not compatible. The HDC needs to be told exactly what is to be built.
Mr. Wilson stated the walkways would be a permeable rock with 4x4” timber borders. He
continued to state that the trim around the door will be a 1x4” trim.
Mr. Minyard summarized the clarifications to the application. Mr. Wilson amended his
application to conform with the statements.
Scott Grummer spoke as a citizen, and stated that his views may not reflect the views of his
board. He commented on exciting growth in the area and those are coming from contemporary
designs.
Ms. Carrie Wilson talked about affordability of the houses and that there were building on vacant
lots. She continued to say that there was interest in moving into the neighborhood.
A summary of the conditions is as follows:
1. No garage accessory building shall be built with this C.O.A.
2. 15’ front year setback measured to the exterior of wall face.
3. 10’ north side yard setback measured to exterior of wall face.
4. 10’ high ceilings throughout house.
5. Front door will not have window. Trim around door will be 1”x4”.
6. Rafter tails to be cut horizontally. Rafters are 2”x10” wood.
7. Siding: Siding configuration is as shown on drawing dated 03/22/2011 with 1x4” trim
between different colors of siding and around doors and windows. Siding around three
windows on north side is to be flat panel siding. Board and Batten siding on the bump out
will be 4x8 sheets with battens 24” on center and 2-1/2 to 3” wide battens. Color selection
of siding is very close to color renderings submitted to commissioners at 04/25/2011
meeting. Lap siding to be 10” lap siding with 9-1/4” exposure.
8 of 17
8. Foundation block height is to be 18” at rear of house.
9. Windows to be Anderson brand with gray anodized finish. All windows are to be operable.
10. Exterior lighting to be placed on wall next to front door to be similar to light at 324 E 15th
Street.
11. Two downspouts are requested, however, if only one downspout is installed, it will be to the
west. Gutters are Galvalume and will match trim piece on flat roof section.
13. Parapet height to be a maximum of 4’-0”.
14. Herringbone sidewalk on public sidewalk to remain.
Mr. Minyard noted that there were two emails concerning this application. One email was in
opposition to the project and one was asking the commission to go by their guidelines.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application as submitted and amended
by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vanlandingham and was
approved with four ayes and one absent (Ripley).
9 of 17
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO B.
DATE: May 9, 2011
APPLICANT: David Anderson & Allison Vandever
ADDRESS: 1418 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: New Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1418 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “the north 45’ of Lot 8,
Block 49 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This is a vacant lot. The former building was demolished
partly because of the tornado.
This application is for a New Infill House. The property
will be developed with two structures of identical size, t he
front structure being used for office/studio and the rear
structure being the living quarters (1 bedroom and 1 bath
open plan design) surrounding a courtyard preserving the
existing elm tree. The project will require a hearing at the
Planning Commission for a Conditional Use permit for the
location of a home occupation in an accessory structure.
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
Montage of street view
10 of 17
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On August 5, 1999, a COA was filed for the repair of the roof after the tornado. The COA was
not granted due to lack of information.
On January 6, 2000, A COA was granted for demolition to Raymond Rogers.
PROPOSAL:
Following is an explanation of a rainscreen from the applicant: “Rainscreen wood wall will be
set approx 4" off structure and spaced approx 1/2" in between each board, creating a screening
effect from the structure of the house. This technology allows wind to move in between and up
and down between the screen and the main structure to act as a multi-functioning wall system.
Some of the advantages include creating a wind break, a rain screen, and a thermal screen for
shading the main structure from UV and solar gain. It creates a similar aesthetic to board and
batten with the vertical breaks, and becomes a low maintenance, low risk siding. There are
moments where translucent screen is the interior finish, allowing daylight to pass through the
rainscreen it is diffused into the living area through the polycarbonate screen, allowing a
reduction in energy usage and creating a daylight system that is all encompassing. (photo 10
shows the spacing off the
main structure, and photo 11
shows the rainscreen with
polycarbonate wall behind it.
both of these images are
taken from the residence at
16th and Commerce, where
the rainscreen is horizontal)”
In essence, the rainscreen
sets off the wall and does not
provide total waterproofing to
the house. As shown in
Photo 11, tarpaper provides
the waterproofing for the
house. The photo shows
that the house cantilevers off
the foundation somewhat.
The house built by UofA architecture students at 1623 Rock utilizes this rainscreen.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
As stated on page 63 of the guidelines: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the
existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
12. Shape: While not typical, the shape and arrangement of the structures are compatible
with the surrounding buildings (based on a cottage with accessory structure in the rear.)
13. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building approximately 20 feet,
which is slightly less than the adjacent buildings. The width of the building is compatible with
the adjacent buildings on that block face.
14. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed buildings will have a 12/12 roof that is similar to the
house at 1410 Rock Street. The gable ends will be to the north and south on both structures.
The latest submittal shows the roofing material will be TAMKO Her itage Mountain Slate asphalt
shingles. (The earliest submittal had an option of metal or asphalt.) The roof will have eaves
that are 8” deep, which is slightly larger than the rainscreen detail. Staff believes that this will
Photo 10 Photo 11
11 of 17
read as if the house has no eaves, which is more typical of 1950’s minimalist architecture. The
office/studio building has a flat portion on the roof that is not compatible with the neighborhood.
There are other buildings in the area (namely apartments) that have flat roofs, but th ose
buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more). The roofing material on the flat
portion of the roof is proposed to be Versico VersiWeld TPO in white (a membrane roof).
15. Orientation to the street: The orientation of the building is compatible with the
neighborhood. The proposal is to have a 15’ front yard setback and 5’-2” and 5-10” side yard
setbacks. These are compatible with the district and within zoning parameters.
16. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: The
proposed buildings are not compatible. The lack of windows on the front building’s front (east)
façade and the lack of windows on the north and south façade are not compatible. Homes in
the area feature windows on all sides of the structures, not just in the courtyard areas and
minimally on the front. A minimum to be considered compatible would be two windows on the
front (east) façade to be either ganged or hung individually. Window size would need to be at
least 3’ x 5’ vertical. A window would need to be installed on both the north and south
elevations of the front structure on the eastern half of the wall at least 3’ x 5’ vertical in size.
Windows in the district need to read as windows. Polycarbonate translucent panes behind the
rainscreen will not read as windows and cannot be considered compatible.
17. Foundation height: The new building will have a maximum of 22” high foundation of
concrete block with natural finish. This height of the foundation is lower than most homes in the
area, but is compatible. The foundation will be 34 feet wide and the structure will be 35’-6” wide
with and overhang of 9” all around. This could make the house appear as it is floating. This
would be the first infill house with this type of foundation to wall relationship.
18. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is approximately 9 feet and is appropriate.
19. Porch height and depth: The porch on the front structure is recessed into the building
and is approximately five feet wide. It will feature three or four full width steps constructed of
white pine in a natural sealed finish. The handrail at the front steps will be stained wood.
20. Material and material color (if brick—closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if
frames –matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding):
The exterior material of the structures are 4” wide white cedar planks. No information is given if
the material is to be sealed or stained. These boards will be installed vertically with a 1/2 inch
space between them. The rainscreen would be a first for the historic district. Using board in a
vertical fashion for sheathing is not new. Board and battens are simply vertical board of
different sizes for sheathing. While this is not typical, the use of this technology would not be
incompatible with the district. The finish of the boards would make a large impact on if the
siding blended in with the neighborhood.
The windows at the northeast corner of the front structure are to be Pe lla Designer series
wood windows with aluminum cladding in brown finish or equivalent. They will feature
three transoms over three wide and three wide over three awning for a 7’-6 ”wide x 7’-6”
tall opening. Other windows will be of a polycarbonate translucent panels (plastic
panels) that is located behind the rainscreen so that light passes through spaces in the
rainscreen as shown in the photo above labeled “Rainscreen front view.” See attached
Poly0210 information attached at end of report.
12 of 17
Doors will be custom made with the polycarbonate translucent panels insert with white cedar
frames. The doors will be 3’-8” wide and 7’ tall. Trim on the doors will be between 8 and 12
inches painted wood.
21. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner
boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size, The Hardie board trim around the eves has
not been specified as to the width of the boards. There appears to be a trim board at the
corners of the structure and a horizontal band separating the gable from the wall sections.
22. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The setback of the proposed front
structure is in keeping with the setbacks of the two adjacent structures.
Fencing will enclose the courtyard and extend north and south to the property lies. This was
amended after the drawings were submitted. The fencing will match the white cedar rainscreen
and be four feet tall.
Walks to the structures will be of concrete pavers. The Drive will be of “grassctrete”. This is
similar to what is installed at the art center loading dock on the north side of their building, but
not exactly the same technology.
Exterior lighting will be recessed cans at the entries.
Mechanical units will be placed inside the courtyard.
The chimney will be a standard metal stove chimney.
They are not requesting the following at this time: Signage, guttering on house, satellite dishes
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.
2. Remove flat portion of roof and continue same pitch and materials as proposed on the
rest of the front structure.
3. Add windows to east, north, and south facades of front structure.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2011
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. David Anderson, the applicant
then presented to the Commission and stated that he did not oppose Staff’s recom mendation.
He stated that he wanted a green roof, but the Staff recommendation of modifying the roof was
okay with him. He also stated that the addition of the windows was okay, but the house and
office structures focus inwards to the courtyard area. He stated that they could produce
drawings with the windows shown.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she drove by the application and thought that the tree
was closer than is shown. She asked how deep is the front portion of the office/studio building
and the answer was 8’ deep. He continued that there was a deck porch area to the rear. She
continued to ask about the polycarbonate and how did it read at night. The response was that
13 of 17
at night it could glow as a light box based on how the panels were illuminated. The
conversation continued on how much polycarbonate was to be used in the project.
Commissioner Wiedower discussed the size of the living structure.
A discussion ensued on the windows. The Commission looked at the large-scale drawings.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that revised drawings would need to be submitted. The
windows on the east side of the office/studio structure have awning windows on the bottom of
the units and transoms above.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham asked if the front structure was for business. Mr.
Anderson stated that it was.
Further discussion was held about the windows and the sizes of the proposed windows to be
added to the structure. The windows shown on the front of the office/studio structure is a 7 1/2
foot square. Mr. Anderson suggested that he could add a 5’ x 7 1/2 foot bank of windows on the
front elevation and a 2 1/2 x 7 1/2’ bank on the north and south side of that building. Staff
commented that the addition of windows on the rear structure is not as necessary as adding
them to the front half of the office/studio building. Trim around the windows was discussed and
it was decided to hold the rainscreen detail back so that the trim around the windows would be
exposed.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the size of the siding. Mr. Anderson responded that it
was 3 1/2” wide with a gap of 1/2 inch. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the finish of
the rainscreen. It will be white cedar with a clear coat finish. Eventually, the boards will weather
out and become silver-gray. It is pest resistant. Commissioner Wiedower suggested that it be
kept 8” off the ground at least.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about switching the flat green roof to the rear structure. Mr.
Anderson stated that it was a sleeping loft and that it could not be a green roof.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about signage. Mr. Minyard stated that it would require a
separate COA for any exterior signage.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she was okay with resubmitting new drawings for the April
Meeting by 5:00 on March 21st. Commissioner Vanlandingham stated that changing the roof on
the front makes it more compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer the item to the next meeting for additio nal
information. Commissioner Vanlandingham seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, and
1 absent (Randy Ripley).
STAFF UPDATE: April 4, 2011
The applicant has resubmitted drawings with the following changes:
1. Removing flat portion of roof on front office/studio structure and extending the pitch of
the gable roof to the south.
2. Windows have been modified and/or added. The windows on the Rock Street façade of
the office/studio have been modified. Originally, it was a grouping of nine windows, three
transoms, three large windows, and three awning windows at the bottom. With this change, the
transoms have been removed. A window has been added to the north elevation of the
office/studio building with a transom above. A grouping of windows have been added to the
14 of 17
office portion of the Rock Street façade with two large windows and two awning windows below.
No window has been added to the south façade of the office/studio building. An opening to the
open porch at the rear of the office/studio building has been added to the south façade.
3. The new perspective shows the fence coming out to the property line to the north (and
the east elevation also shows it to the south.) See drawing at the end of this report titled
“Revised drawings of perspectives elevations dated 03-17-2011.”
An additional drawing shows where the polycarbonate wall system is to be placed is located at
the end of this report titled “Revised drawings of perspectives elevations dated 03-17-2011”. It
will be in both gable ends of the living structure and the north facing gable end of the
office/studio structure. Solid walls will be on the entirety of the north façade of the office studio
structure, walls of the living, office and studio spaces. The porch, located on the west portion of
the office/studio structure, will not have polycarbonate or solid wall, it will act as lattice. See
diagrams below. The green lines represent solid walls, the blue represents polycarbonate and
the red represents open air.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as resubmitted with the following condition:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2011
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that since there were only three present and
that since Commissioner Ripley would have to recuse on the next two items, there would not be
a quorum to continue the meeting.
After discussion, it was decided that staff would try to set a called meeting for April 25, 2011.
Publication deadlines for the legal ad, and booking a room was discussed. Staff would contact
all parties present to inform them when the meeting was set. Commissioner Wiedower made a
motion to convene a special meeting as soon as possible, hopefully April 25, 2011.
Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent
(Peters and Vanlandingham).
COMMISSION ACTION: April 25, 2011
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. There were no questions of the
Commission.
David Anderson, the applicant, gave new drawings to the commission that included a 8’ x 32’
breezeway between the structures. Discussion then focused on the roofing materials.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the roof would be determined before construction.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham asked if the breezeway lined up with both structures on the
north wall. He asked if he would consider moving it. Discussion focused on the moveable barn
like doors and the setting the breezeway back one foot.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower commented that the front overhang would not read as an
overhang. Mr. Anderson agreed that the overhang does not extend past the rainscreen much.
The eaves on the gable ends are 8” and the overhang on the breezeway is 6” with the rafter
tails exposed.
Commissioner Wiedower asked for details on the front entryway. Mr. Anderson stated that is to
be white pine horizontally installed. It would be a large frame to walk through. He continued
that the door would be set back from the front wall.
15 of 17
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she needed to know the roof material and front entry
details. Commissioner Marshall Peters stated that he needed more details. He instructed the
applicant to check on insurance rates on the various types of roofing and to factor that into the
decision. Ms. Weldon stated that an applicant could amend a COA after it is completed.
Commissioner Vanlandingham stated he was opposed to the breezeway being set inline with
the other two structures. Mr. Anderson stated he would inset it one foot.
Commissioner Peters stated that they could not approve maybe, they had to have definite plans
to approve. The applicant spoke of various types of roofs to consider. Mr. Minyard stated that
the applicant would have to have the new details into the office by 8:00 am Thursday morning
with details of the front entry and the one choice of the roofing selection.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hendrix to defer for two weeks for more details to be
given to the commission and was seconded by Commissioner Hendrix. The motion was
approved with a vote of four ayes and one absent.
III. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:40 p.m.
Attest:
Secretary/Staff
16
,iq 120H
Date
,�5- (o -2t(
Date