Loading...
HDC_05 09 20111 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 9, 2011, 5:15 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Chris Vanlandingham Members Absent: Loretta Hendrix City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Page Wilson Sara Oliver Tim Heiple Melissa Woods Allison Vandever David Anderson II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of April 25, 2011 with 2 changes as noted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. 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 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO A. 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, the 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 3 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: 1. 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.) 2. 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. 3. 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 Heritage 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 4 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 those buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more). The roofing material on t he flat portion of the roof is proposed to be Versico VersiWeld TPO in white (a membrane roof). 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is approximately 9 feet and is appropriate. 8. 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. 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 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. Us ing 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 Pella 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. 5 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. 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 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. 11. 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 recommendation. He stated that he wanted a green roof, but the Staff recommendation of modifying the r oof 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 6 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 additional 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, t he 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 7 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. 8 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. STAFF UPDATE: May 2, 2011 Details of the entry detail, roof selection, and location of breezeway was emailed to Staff at 8:00 am April 28, 2011. The front entry detail appears to be and extension of the white pine wall that is on both sides of the entry recessed porch and trimmed with white pine 1x4’s on the vertical and horizontal face of the entry. That white pine will also be on the ceiling of the recessed porch. See detail at the end of this report. The roofing selection will be the asphalt singles as stated in the original application. The breezeway is shown to be recessed one foot from the walls of the main structures. Clarify what “Some material maybe salvaged to complete portions of this detail” means. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as resubmitted with the following condition: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2011 A brief presentation of the item was made by Brian Minyard. He made a note that the “image B perspective” was labeled northeast instead of northwest. The applicant declined to speak. No citizens choose to speak for or against the item. As summary of the conditions is a follows: 1. Window placement per drawings dated 03/17/2011. 2. Breezeway addition to be set back one foot to the south. Drawings dated 04/22/2011 show detailing of breezeway. 3. Front entry detailing per drawings dated 04/27/2011. 4. Other notes as specified on 04/22/11 drawing unless superceded by notes on 04/27/11 drawing. A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve 1418 Rock Street as amended with conditions. Chris Vanlandingham seconded and the motion passes with 3 ayes, 1 absent (Hendrix) and 1 recusing (Ripley). 9 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: May 9, 2011 APPLICANT: HMF, LLC ADDRESS: 503 East 6th Street COA REQUEST: Privacy Fence on West Property line PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 East 6th Street. The property’s legal description is Lots 1 and 2 Fowler square amended Plan, being a replat of the Fowler Block of Stevenson’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Fowler Square complex is comprised of the original Fowler Mansion, it’s original two-story outbuilding, six apartment buildings, and a pool house/mechanical building that were constructed in the 1970’s. The original house, built in he 1840’s, and outbuilding are considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The red brick apartment buildings are non- contributing. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No COA’s were found form a search of the records. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66 of the Guidelines, it states the following concerning Fences: 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 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 10 fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. The proposal is to add a six-foot privacy fence to the west property line of the complex. It would start at the same distance off Sixth Street as the building setback of the westernmost building along 6th Street. It would then follow the alley property line to the north, and then to the east along their property line and then north to Seventh Street. It would join existing fencing along 6th Street. This fence would match the existing fence on the neighboring property across the alley. This is shown on the detail named Plan at the end of this report. This fence would eliminate vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic from entering the complex via the alley. The guidelines state that privacy fences should start halfway back of the building. The proposed placement on Seventh Street is at the front building line and at Sixth Street; the fence would extend to the front property line (or close to it) along Sixth Street. If the desire were to limit cross traffic through the complex, a three foot shortened version of the privacy fence would suffice from the building setback line along Sixth Street to the existing iron fence along Sixth. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 4. Obtaining a building permit. 5. Install a three foot shortened version fence instead of the six-foot privacy fence from the building setback line to Sixth Street. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2011 There was a discussion between Commissioner Julie Wiedower and Debra Weldon of the City Attorney’s office as to whether Commissioner Wiedower had a conflict of interest in this case. Ms. Weldon stated that she would not participate and Commissioner Wiedower left the meeting at 5:25. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham asked Staff to clarify that he was not within 150’ of the subject property. Mr. Minyard stated that he was not. The applicant was informed that with only three commissioners present that he would have the option to defer but that the deferral would not count against him. He decided to pursue a presentation vote at this time. Fence across alley that will be matched. 11 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. He clarified the Staff recommendation of modifying the height of the fence. No emails or comments were registered before the meeting. There are two citizens present to speak on the item. The applicant, Tim Heiple, addressed the committee and explained the location of the fencing. He stated that the northeastern most portion of the proposed fence would not be built at this time. He was asking approval for the fence at this hearing. He noted that the surveyors were on site today to locate the property lines. Chairman Marshall Peters asked abort the existing trees. He stated that the fence might be moved to protect the existing trees on the property line between them and DDF. Mr. Heiple amended his application to state that the proposed fence would be from the face of the building to the face of the building. (in other words, to use the current building setbacks as the setback for the proposed fence.) Commissioner Ripley wanted and received clarification on the parameters of the application. Melissa Woods, property owner, asked if the fence could be made to look older, since it is a stately property. She also asked where the fence ended and if another type of fence would continue after that one. Mr. Heiple stated that it was the intention to restore the iron fence and continue it to the hook up with the wood fence. He was not asking for the iron fence today, because he was unaware of the conditions in the future. Chairman Peters restated his concern over the trees on the northwestern side. Mr. Heiple said that he would work to save the trees as much as possible and that the fence may not be permanent. Commissioner Ripley commented on the existing iron fence and whether it provided security or not. Mr. Heiple stated that they might put some landscaping behind the fence to add to the security. Sara Oliver, property owner who owns on the west side of the alley, stated that she had talked with Mr. Heiple on the phone earlier. She wanted to know the width of the alley, was concerned about backing out of her garage, commented on vagrants in the alley and asked for security light to be placed in the alley. She also commented on loitering that occurs in the alley. Mr. Heiple stated that they did not know exactly where the alley was located yet and therefore was unsure on exactly where the fence would go. He did state that with the stairs on Building 700, there was not a lot of room to move the entirety of the fence to the east. It was discussed that the width of the alley could be 20 feet, and Mr. Heiple stated that th e fence could be moved a couple of feet in the immediate vicinity of the her garage. Commissioner Vanlandingham made a motion to approve the item as amended by the applicant. Commissioner Ripley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 absent (Hendrix) and 1 recusal (Wiedower). III. Other Matters Ordinance Revision The revisions to the ordinance were passed by the Board of Directors, so the bylaw revision item will be on your next agenda. Ms. Weldon clarified that it would be presented at the June meeting and to be voted on at the July meeting. Enforcement issues Staff is enforcing an issue at 1404 South Scott Street for a fencing Violation. CZDC is also enforcing this item. Chairman Peters wanted to clarify that the HDC's approval was subject to the CZDC's approval. Citizen Communication There were not citizens present to speak. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Attest: Chair ?6L� �� 0t ' Secretary/Staff 12 L - (3-ao Date 6- l4 -�� Date