Loading...
HDC_04 14 2008iLy r.i LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334 Phone: (501) 371 -4790 Fax: (501) 399 -3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2008, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Kay Tatum Julie Wiedower Susan Bell Wesley Walls Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Eve Gieringer Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Tommy Braswell Approval of Minutes a February 11, 2008 b March 10, 2008 Debra Weldon stated that since the commission had revised the meeting protocol at a previous meeting, that it would be good for the commission to have a vote on that item since the agenda items had been moved. The motion was made and was passed unanimously. The new order of the agenda will be the Certificate of Appropriateness at 507 E 8th Street, approval of minutes, Deferred Certificate of Appropriatenesses, then Other Matters as shown on the Revised Agenda. rh LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DATE: April 14, 2008 APPLICANT: Marshall Peters 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. One. ADDRESS: 507 East 8th Street COA Fence on east and west sides of property REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 507 East 8th Street. The property's legal description is " Part of Block 5, Johnson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The 1988 survey lists the house as being built ca. 1903 with a porch remodeled in the Craftsman style at a later date. It was not considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District at that time. However, the artificial siding has been removed and the upcoming survey may show it as a contributing structure. This structure is not listed in the 1978 survey. This application is for the addition of a privacy fence with 2 gates on the west side of the house and a privacy fence along the east side of the rear yard to replace existing chain link fencing. The west side fence will start approximately halfway to the back of the house from the front column of the porch. The applicant has submitted two options for review. Option A is a float board style with a two -piece cap. The pickets and rails are inset into the side of the post. Option B is a "board and batten" style fence with the pickets and rails set outside of the posts. It also includes a two -piece cap. I i d 1 a 8k NQ 'w••h„ it 8'i6 t'° °t �g r ale +w F Location of Project Front of house PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: November 7, 2001, An administrative approval to receive a building permit was issued to replace garage roof and repair front retaining wall. December 4, 2003, A COA was issued to replace the front retaining wall and to install central heat and air. October 7, 2004, a COA was issued to remove and replace windows in the rear of the structure and repair windows in front. April 10, 2006, A COA was issued to remove artificial siding from house and repair /replace original wood siding. East side of house West side of house WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 66 under the section titled "Fences and Retaining Walls ": 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. Chain -link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free - standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. e__. n_i — J.", Option 8 This proposal meets the criteria stated above and removes chain link fencing that is located in the rear yard. This chain link fence is not visible from the street. The fence is proposed to be 6 feet in height with the posts to be approximately 8 -10 inches higher. The fence on the west side of the house will include a drive gate, one wide enough for a vehicle to enter. The applicant has asked for the option to stain or paint the fence. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of either option on fencing without any brick columns as noted on submittal with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit as needed. 2. Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. 3. Submittal of final stain or paint choice to Staff prior to application. COMMISSION ACTION: April 14, 2008 Chairmen Peters left the room because he owns the property seeking the COA. Commissioner Walls lead the meeting for that item. Eve Gieringer, Staff, stated the notices for the item appeared to be in order. Ms. Gieringer made the presentation for the fence item. She reviewed the options "A" and "B" for the fence. Photos are included in the staff write -up. The proposal is within the guidelines. At the time of printing, we had not heard from any citizens. Staff did hear form Mollie Satterfield, an adjoining property owner, about if the fence was going to block access to a landlocked lot that she owns. The alley access is located one lot over, so this fence does not block any egress to her property. She is fine with the fence. Ms. Gieringer reviewed the staff recommendations. Staff asked the commission to choose option A or B. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked where Ms. Satterfield's lot was. Ms. Gieringer clarified it for her. Commissioner Bell asked how wide the lot is and the dimensions. Location of the fence was clarified by the survey provided. Tommy Braswell representing the application explained the item. He did state, when asked by Commissioner Walls, that they were leaning toward the board and batten option. It would prevent the big wide cracks that privacy fence gets. Another option is to use tongue and groove board on Option A. The color will be to match the color of the house on the driveway side and the rear yard fence would be natural. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the Zoellers' fence to the west. Mr. Braswell commented that it was a dog -ear fence. Commissioner Bell stated that is was stockade fence facing Eighth Street fence and the chain link runs along the shared property line. Commissioner Walls stated that he did not have a preference to option "A" or "B ". He asked if the applicant had a preference of "A," "B," or "A" with the tongue and groove boards. Commissioner Wiedower stated that he could amend his application if he was sure that is what he wanted to do. Commissioner Walls asked Ms. Weldon if the commission needed to approve one or the other or if they could approve either. Ms. Weldon stated that it should be one option of the other with a option of tongue and groove board or plain boards. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to approve the fence as presented in Option A with an option of the two types of boards as discussed with the painting and staining to be approved by staff to include staff recommendations. Commission Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal. Ms. Gieringer stated that the applicant would need to give the Staff details of the paint and stain color and the type of wood used. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Minutes: Chairman Peters re- entered the room and Commissioner Tatum left the meeting at 5:15. Chairman Peters made a notice to staff that the sign topper at Eighth and Rock was missing. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to approve the minutes of February 11, 2008 as submitted. Commissioner Bell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of the minutes of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. Commissioner Susan Bell made a motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 2008 as submitted. Commissioner Walls seconded and the motion passed with a vote of the minutes of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. V. Other Matters: a An application has been filed for 1015 Rock for a privacy fence in the rear yard for the next hearing. b 1301 Scott Street:, the owner replaced a roof that change the pitch without a COA. It is also in the Capitol Zoning District and it has a fagade easement on it. Ms. Gieringer stated that all three agencies are working on the enforcement. c A handout of all of the facade easements mapped was given to the commissioners. Commissioner Susan Bell asked about two in the Dunbar area. Ms. Gieringer asked if it was okay to email her the information. d Enforcement issues: 916 Scott Street. They were redoing the upstairs porch and a permit was issued in error by the permit desk. Mr. Minyard sent a memo to the division head and department head on this issue to clarify the issue for all employees on when permits are required. e Enforcement: 500 E 6h Street. Working on condominiums on St Clair condominiums and work on the soffits and fascia. f Eastside Auditorium will be receiving a letter for site debris. g Grants application - Training is big push for the grant cycles. The discussion was about dates of the meetings in New Orleans in July and the National Trust in Tulsa. h Commissioner Wiedower stated that she would be at the CLG meeting in NLR. i Ms. Gieringer stated that she has been cataloging all of the past actions of the Commissions from 1980's to today. She has Commerce and Cumberland Streets to finish. Staff is working on a numbering system. j Preservation Plan: a consultant has been picked and the consultant has been asked to send us a draft contract with scope of services and their timeline. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the mailing list. It is for invitations to the public hearings in addition to the public notices mandated. k Ms. Weldon stated that she was researching demolition review for houses that do not have designation for houses that might be significant in the future. Ms. Weldon asked whom to ask in the City; Mr. Minyard explained the permit fee and process and suggested that she talk to Tony or Ronyha. I Mr. Peters asked about the Dunbar survey. Staff explained that it was a different department and that Staff would ask for an update. m Mr. Peters also asked about Stifft Station Capitol View becoming ordinanced. Mr. Minyard stated that the movement has stalled. n Mr. Minyard stated the Governor's Mansion and Central High surveys had been handed into the state. The consultant for the MacArthur Park survey has not responded to Staff's emails. o Citizen Communication — There were no citizens to speak. V1. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m. Attest: Chair 6t(,6kA CJ Secretary/Staff Date -J(", 1-1,( zoo Date