Loading...
HDC_03 24 2008ITTLE ROCK 3ISTORIC )ISTRICT OMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334 Phone: (501) 371 -4790 Fax: (501) 399 -3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 24, 2008, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being three (3) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Kay Tatum Julie Wiedower II. III. Members Absent: City Attorney: Staff Present: Citizens Present: Approval of Minutes None Susan Bell Wesley Walls Debra Weldon Walter Malone Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness 1 ITTLE ROCK 3ISTORIC 3ISTRICT OMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2008 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334 Phone: (501) 371 -4790 Fax: (501) 399 -3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. APPLICANT: Arlene R. Sullivan, S & S Renovations. LLC ADDRESS: 308 Daisy Bates Drive Replace /repair siding, replace part of foundation, front porch COA modifications, replace windows including covering one window, install REQUEST: fencing, install gutters and downspouts, and construct a porch over the northwest door. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION. The subject property is located at 308 Daisy Bates Drive. The property's legal description is "part of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The residence was built ca. 1890's in the Colonial Revival style according to the 1988 survey. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (1 being the highest and III being the lowest) and of Local historical significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1988 survey states that it is a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. Location of Project This application has the following sections to be considered: 1) Replace /repair siding, 2) replace part of foundation, 3) front porch modifications, 4) replace windows including covering one window, 5) install fencing, 6) install gutters and downspouts and 7) construct a porch over the northwest door. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE. In June 2007, Staff contacted Don Bryant to obtain a building permit. An interior remodel only permit was issued prior to June 25, 2007. 9 On October 5, 2000, a COA was denied to install vinyl windows. On May 5, 2000, a permit was issued for an interior remodel. On May 4, 2000, a COA was approved for the repair of the windows and to install storm windows over them. Existing south (front) elevation 1978 photo PROPOSAL: This application has the following items to be considered: 1) Replace /repair siding: The owner proposes to repair and replace all damaged and rotted wood in the siding areas, soffit and fascia with the same size and profile. This could normally be handled with the Certificate of Compliance (COC). 2) Replace part of foundation: A portion of the foundation in the northwest corner of the house has sunken. This foundation will be removed and replaced with the same materials and finish as the front. The front foundation, visible from the street, is covered in a stucco finish that has been painted. 3) Front porch modifications: The owner proposes to remove the 6x6 wood posts that are currently on the porch and replace them with square wood columns that would match the columns at 624 Rock Street, another contributing Colonial Revival structure as shown in a photo on page 4. The Rock Street house has twin columns; the proposal is for single columns. The owner would also ask for the option to install a railing on the porch as shown in the photo. The second floor railing is not requested. The applicant amended her application to include placing wood boards over the concrete porch floor and front concrete steps. 4) Replace windows including covering one window: The proposal is to replace all windows with double pane energy efficient wood windows that will be metal clad exterior. The wood frames around the windows would be 91 retained. The owner proposes to cover over one window. It is the lower window on the east side of the structure located in a closet under the interior stairway. The request is for security reasons. The owner proposes to remove the frame and window and cover over it with matching siding. 5) Install fencing: Portions of the backyard are already fenced with the east (alley side). The north and west sides properties. The proposal is to install a six -foot fence will start at the northwest corner of the property line. A walk gate to the back yard will N six foot fencing. A drive gate exists to have similar fencing on the adjoining privacy fence with a walk gate. The house and continue due west to the located near the house. 6) Install gutters and downspouts: Gutters and downspouts would be installed on the entirety of the structure. 7) Construct a porch over the northwest door: The porch would be designed to be similar in size to the photo of the porch in the 1978 survey photo. It would cover the door to the kitchen. Other items included in the cover letter are: Removal of a set of concrete steps on the southwest corner of the structure. These steps are not historic to the original house. The applicant proposes to concrete the existing parking pad to the west of the house. A curb cut/driveway apron is already there. The parking pad would be of smooth concrete. Landscaping will be added to the front of the house. 2) Replace part of foundation: M A portion of the foundation in the northwest corner of the house has sunken. This foundation will be removed and replaced with the same materials and finish as the original. The front foundation, visible from the street, is covered in a stucco finish that has been painted. The guidelines state: Foundations should be preserved in their original design with original materials and detailing. Spaces between piers should be filled according to the type and style of the house, generally with wood- framed lattice panels; with brick appropriate to the period of the house; or with decorative vertical wood boards. Foundations should not be constructed of concrete, plywood, corrugated metal, or shingles. Masonry foundations should be cleaned, repaired, or repainted according to masonry guidelines. 3) Front porch modifications: The owner proposes to remove the 6x6 wood posts that are currently on the porch and Existing porch (2008) Proposed columns and railing (shown in black box) located at 624 Rock St replace them with square wood columns that would match the columns at 624 Rock Street, another contributing Colonial Revival structure in a photo above. The Rock Street House has twin columns; the proposal is for single columns. The owner would also ask for the option to install a railing on the porch as shown in the photo. The second floor railing is not requested. A photo from the 1978 survey shows ornamental iron posts and railings on the structure. A wall mount decorative light would be placed on one side of the front door as well as can recessed lights in the ceiling of the porch. 5 The applicant amended her application to include placing wood boards over the concrete porch floor and front concrete steps. There is very little height difference between the finished floor elevation and the threshold of the door. Any wood that would be added would have to be glued to the concrete porch floor. 4) Replace windows: The proposal is to replace all windows with double pane energy efficient wood windows that will be metal clad exterior. The wood frames around the windows would be retained. The owner proposes to remove one window. It is the lower window on the east side of the structure located in a closet under the interior stairway. The request is for security reasons. The owner proposes to remove the frame and window and cover ovi Front Door (2008) The 1978 photo shows one over one windows on the front elevation. Currently, there is evidence that two windows on the east and two windows on the west have already been filled in with siding from previous owners. The window headers and sills have been removed. There is one window on the west that is missing a header. The owner has asked to fill it in for security reasons. The window leads to a closet under the interior stairs and a trespasser could be in the house undetected. It is the opinion of the AHPP that the window could be covered in the following manner. Do not remove the headers, sills, or sashes. Cover the opening (inside the frame) with marine grade plywood. Cover the plywood with matching siding. Caulk, prime, and paint. This will read that a window was there and if a future owner wanted to reopen the window, the historic fabric would still be in place. no 5) Install fencing Portions of the backyard are already fenced with six foot fencing. A drive gate exists to the east (alley side). The north and west side has similar fencing on the adjoining properties. The proposal is to install a six -foot privacy fence with a walk gate. The fence will start at the northwest corner of the house and continue due west to the property line. A walk gate to the back yard will be located near the house. The guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. The proposed location is within the guidelines and will match existing fencing on site. West side of house (location of driveway and proposed fence at the rear of the structure) Rear fence (drive gate) from alley located at north east corner 6) Install gutters and downspouts. Gutters and downspouts would be installed on the entirety of the structure. The guidelines state: Boxed or built-in gutters should be repaired rather than replaced if possible. For hang -on application, half -round gutters are recommended. Downspouts should be located away from significant architectural features on the front of the house. The use of gutters, flashing, and downspouts should provide enough drainage to avoid water damage to the structure. The type of guttering was not specified in the application. Downspouts, located on the corners of the structure, are to be located on the sides of the structure, not on the front. Plastic guttering and downspouts are not appropriate. 7) Construct a porch over the northwest door The porch would cover the door to the kitchen, which is located at the rear of the structure. The porch would be designed to be similar in size to the photo of the porch in the 2000 photo as shown below to the right. The porch is also visible in the 1978 7 photo on page 2. The porch would have details similar to the renovations planned for the front porch. The applicant is proposing a wall mounted light fixture to be placed beside the door. Current photo of west side of house showing porch Ca 2000 photo of west side of house. steps to be removed. Other items included in the cover letter are: Removal of a set of concrete steps on the southwest corner of the structure. These are shown in the photo above left. These steps were not historic to the original house. The applicant proposes to concrete the existing parking pad to the west of the house. A curb cut/driveway apron with patchy asphalt and gravel are already there. The parking pad would be of smooth concrete. Landscaping will be added to the front of the house. 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 within 180 days of approval. 2. Project to be completed within one year of obtaining permit. 3. Replace /repair siding — Staff is supportive of this repair /maintenance work in conformance with the Guidelines. 4. Replace part of foundation — Staff is supportive of this section of the application. 5. Front porch modifications — Staff is supportive of the replacement columns and railings to match those at 624 Rock Street. Final selection of lighting fixtures will be submitted to the Commission before installation of such. 6. Staff is not supportive of placing wood flooring over the existing concrete on front porch nor is Staff supportive of encasing the front steps in wood. 7. Replace windows — Staff is supportive of the replacement windows. Submittal of final window design to the Commission is necessary. If windows are significantly H D %f If 1 j f >timr a' t d, Current photo of west side of house showing porch Ca 2000 photo of west side of house. steps to be removed. Other items included in the cover letter are: Removal of a set of concrete steps on the southwest corner of the structure. These are shown in the photo above left. These steps were not historic to the original house. The applicant proposes to concrete the existing parking pad to the west of the house. A curb cut/driveway apron with patchy asphalt and gravel are already there. The parking pad would be of smooth concrete. Landscaping will be added to the front of the house. 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 within 180 days of approval. 2. Project to be completed within one year of obtaining permit. 3. Replace /repair siding — Staff is supportive of this repair /maintenance work in conformance with the Guidelines. 4. Replace part of foundation — Staff is supportive of this section of the application. 5. Front porch modifications — Staff is supportive of the replacement columns and railings to match those at 624 Rock Street. Final selection of lighting fixtures will be submitted to the Commission before installation of such. 6. Staff is not supportive of placing wood flooring over the existing concrete on front porch nor is Staff supportive of encasing the front steps in wood. 7. Replace windows — Staff is supportive of the replacement windows. Submittal of final window design to the Commission is necessary. If windows are significantly H different than those approved by the Commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 8. Filling in eastern window under stairs — Staff is not generally supportive of removing windows from historic structures. Staff can be supportive of the window modifications as proposed by the AHPP. Staff cannot be supportive of any other treatment to the window. 9. Install fencing — Staff is supportive of the repair work to the existing fencing and the addition of fencing on the west side of the structure. 10. Install gutters and downspouts - Staff is supportive of metal guttering being placed on the structure. 11. Construct a porch over the northwest door — Staff is supportive of this addition. Lighting fixtures will need to be submitted to the Commission before installation of such. 12. Removal of steps and porch on southwest corner of house — Staff is supportive. COMMISSION ACTION: March 10 2008 There are properties on the "area of impact" notice list that have two owners, not just partners. It appears that only one owner was notified for each property. It was recommended by the legal Staff that the item be deferred to a later meeting to allow the notice problem to be corrected. The applicant noted that she had done everything as instructed to do. The time of the next meeting was discussed. The time period for notices was discussed. Eve Gieringer, of Staff, noted that a Certificate of Compliance was drafted and could be issued to the applicant to allow her to start work on the structure. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, researched the notice time required by statute. Ms. Weldon added that the constitutional test is if the notices were "reasonably calculated" to notify all of the affected property owners. Commissioner Wesley Walls suggested that if a special meeting could be held in two weeks, he would suggest that. Eve Gieringer summarized the Certificate of Compliance and noted that a building permit could be issued for these items as listed on the COC. Walter Malone stated that the covering of the window was the issue that prohibited the siding being included in the COC. Commissioner Walls asked if any commissioner felt differently from legal counsel on deferring the item. None were noted. A date for the next meeting was discussed for March 24, 2008. The applicant stated that she could be here for the meeting, but Commissioner Walls stated that he would not be able to attend. Ms. Weldon asked if the Staff could mail the notices out because of the misunderstanding. Notices will be sent out tomorrow. The applicant signed the affidavit of the Notice of Public Hearing. Z A motion to defer this item to March 24, 2008 was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower and was seconded by Commissioner Susan Bell. The motion passed 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Ms. Gieringer verified what was to be mailed to the property owners. She also stated that she would contact the other commissioners. Scott Carter, of the public relation office, will need to be notified so that required FOIA notice can be provided for the March 24 meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: March 24, 2008 Debra Weldon, of the city attorney's office stated that since this was a special meeting, she asked to have it stated for the record to what the meeting was in reference. Chairman Marshall Peters stated that this was a special called meeting in response to a notification issue from the March 10, 2008 meeting for a COA at 308 Daisy Bates Drive for Arlene Sullivan / S &S Renovations. Legal notifications have been met. Chairman Peters informed the applicant that with 12 requests being considered on this one item, that if one section of the twelve was denied, it would cause the entire item to be denied. That would cause a one -year wait to rehear the item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower clarified that there were seven requests that were made on this item with 12 staff recommendations. The applicant, Ms. Sullivan, needed clarification on the one - year wait. If the item was broken into separate considerations, and not interdependent, it could be voted on separately. Chairman Peters asked the applicant to look at the last two pages of the staff report at the staff recommendations. He informed her that she could ask for separate votes on the recommendations. Mr. Walter Malone, Planning Staff, advised her it was the safest route for her. She requested them to be separated. Mr. Malone made the presentation of the item and which was interdependent of the other. The siding could be interdependent with the covering of the window on the east side. Light fixtures would need to be approved by staff prior to installation. Staff is supportive of the window replacement with a similar style. Staff is not generally supportive of covering over windows, but understands the reasoning behind the request. He continued that after discussions with the State, it could be boxed in so that it could be opened up at a late date. Staff is supportive of the fencing request, the gutter and downspouts, the rear porch addition. Staff is not supportive of the wood flooring addition to the front porch. Staff is supportive of the removal of the steps on the west side. Chairman peters asked about the method of covering over a window with lap siding. On this structure in the past, there has been an obvious line where the old windows were. He asked if this was gong to be the case now for the replacement of siding so that it would not appear to have been one there. The applicant stated that her group was not in full agreement whether to cover the window or not. She stated it was under the staircase and could be a potential security problem. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked Staff about the foundation. She asked if it was painted brick or parched over with stucco. The applicant commented that it was stucco. Commissioner Wiedower asked about boxing in the window under the stairs. She 10 commented that the window would be present, but the siding would read as if a window had never been there. Staff commented that was his understanding. Chairman Peters asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Ms. Sullivan stated that there were about 25 windows to be replaced. She stated that she wanted to restore the house, keep the integrity, and replace historic details to the house. The windows are single pane windows and are not energy efficient. The type of windows were addressed. The first option was a vinyl window. The second option was a wood clad in vinyl. The third option was a wood replacement sashes. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the replacement sashes were clad. Ms. Sullivan replied yes. She asked if the wood windows with wood trim acceptable. Commissioner Wiedower asked the applicant to clarify her request on the cladding -- "Are these wood windows that are clad in vinyl on the exterior? The applicant responded that the interior of the windows were clad in vinyl. Chairman Peters stated, "Full vinyl windows are not recommended nor are fully metal windows." He tried to find a reference in the guidelines but was unable. Commissioner Wiedower asked what was there currently. The applicant stated it was wood and rotted wood. Chairman Peters read form the guidelines on page 52. Windows should be preserved in their original... ...replacement should match original in materials and design." Commissioner Wiedower stated that Staff was supportive of the replacement, but the choice would have to go through Staff before installation if the item was approved. The applicant stated she had issues interpreting the guidelines on what they meant on replacement windows. Commissioner Widower asked if the applicant has a sense of how much siding was to be replaced. Ms. Sullivan commented that it would be probably be 50 percent. Commissioner Widower continued that the west side of the structure looked as if a lot of the siding had been altered or changed over the years. Ms. Sullivan stated that they would repair and replace, then place protective coating on the siding. Commissioner Widower asked about the front porch flooring. The applicant stated that the concrete had been chipped. She stated that they would probably repair the concrete and stain it. The steps are "off kilter' and they would address those and stain them. The three posts are to be removed and replaced with those similar to those on Rock Street. The railing may or may not be added. Commissioner Widower asked if there were historic photos of a railing on the porch. There was no answer to the question. Commissioner Widower asked about the street numbers on the transom above the front door. She asked if the applicant was gong to maintain that. Ms. Sullivan stated that she was and that she was keeping the front door, just repair, and repaint it. Commissioner Widower asked about the rear stoop on the northwest corner. She asked if that went into the kitchen. Ms. Sullivan responded that it would go into a mud room /laundry room. Commissioner Wiedower asked if it was going to be a shallow shed roof over the door. Ms. Sullivan responded that it would similar to the one shown in the 1978 photo. The fence would be behind the stoop. Commissioner Wiedower 11 said that it was a plain house, but the siting makes it a more prominent structure. Commissioner Wiedower continued that front elevation and the detailing on it is important to maintain. She continued that the headers over the windows should be maintained and repaired. Ms. Sullivan stated that the original headers and jambs around the windows would be repaired. Chairman Peters asked about the header on the window that the applicant is proposing to remove on page 5 of the staff report. He asked if the pieces would be saved and placed in the cavity where the window is so that a future person would be able to reinstall it. Commissioner Wiedower stated that that was a good idea. Chairman Peters stated that his were taken off his house when the metal siding was installed and the headers were expensive to re- install. Commissioner Wiedower asked about two windows that may have been covered over or removed previously. The applicant said that it was plywood covering the windows. Chairman Peters stated that recommendation number six stated that it was not recommended that wood be placed over the concrete of the front porch and steps. Ms. Weldon asked if the applicant would like to amend her application to remove that from her application. Ms. Sullivan said yes to the amendment. Chairman Peters asked about recommendation number eight and if the applicant was willing to adhere to the staff recommendations concerning the covering of the window. Ms. Sullivan stated that Mr. Minyard had given her instructions. Mr. Malone stated that the write -up was more general and that Mr. Minyard probably gave her instructions that are more specific from the AHPP. The applicant started reading the instructions from page five of the report. Chairman Peters stated that if the header and exterior trim boards were removed, it would be placed inside the cavity. Chairman Peters stated that with the amended application, one vote could suffice for the entirety of the item. There was discussion on how to phrase the motion. Mr. Malone stated that all motions should be subject to recommendation number one and two. Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve recommendation #3 (repair and replace siding) to include of recommendation 1 and 2. Commissioner Julie Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the recommendation to repair and replace part of the foundation ( #4) including of recommendation 1 and 2. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve recommendation #5 concerning front porch modifications to include of recommendation 1 and 2 with the condition that lighting fixtures will be approved by Staff and with the removal of the request ( #6) to 12 install wood over the porch floor and steps. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the replacement of the windows ( #7) and to fill-in the window on the east side ( #8) with the understanding that that the framing and exterior trim be maintained inside the house so that the window could be reinstalled at a later date including of recommendation 1 and 2 and that applicant submitted final window design to Staff. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to approve recommendation #9 (fencing) in accordance to the Guidelines including of recommendation 1 and 2. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve ( #10) installing gutters and downspouts including of recommendation 1 and 2 in accordance with staff recommendations. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to approve recommendation #11 (porch over northwest door) including of recommendation 1 and 2. Lighting will be approved by Staff. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion approve ( #12) to the removal of steps and porch on the southwest corner of the structure including of recommendation 1, 2 and 12 in accordance with staff recommendations. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with three ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. Commissioner Tatum congratulated the applicant on the restoration of the house. Discussion continued on the livability of the neighborhood. 13 IV. V. Certificates of Appropriateness None. Other Matters Chairman Peters asked if Staff had any other issues to discuss. Mr. Malone added that Citizen Communication needed to be addressed. Otherwise, he had nothing to add. There were no speakers on Citizen Communications. A discussion continued on the probability for a quorum for the next meeting. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Attest: Chair r� Secretary/Staff 14 Date Da e