Loading...
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