Loading...
HDC_08 18 20081 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, August 18, 2008, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities’ Conference Room, City Hall I. 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: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Boyd Maher Vanessa Norton, HPAA Tonya Robinson Fisher John Fisher Richard Butler Susan Blair Welch Jake Yancy Michelle Welch Bob Blair II. Approval of Minutes a July 14, 2008 Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to approve as presented. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion passed with 3 ayes and 2 abstentions (Commissioner Wesley Walls and Bob Woods were not present at the meeting.) 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: August 18, 2008 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson-Fisher ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Replace all Windows and Replace wire fence along street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 E 7th Street. The property’s legal description is the “North 100 feet of lot 1 block 4 Johnson’s addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the 1960s and it is a non-contributing structure, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists it as a vernacular cottage. This application is to replace all windows and replace wire fence along street. The bent wire fence along 7th Street would be removed and replaced with an ornamental iron fence with walk gate and drive gate. The drive gate would be operated with an automatic opener/closer. The replacement windows would be an all vinyl window with six over six panes with fiberglass half screens. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the property. A COA was needed, but it was never filed. On July 9, 2007, a COA was issued for the replacement of columns on the front porch, installing a privacy fence in the rear yard and painting the brick structure. The painting of the brick structure and the front porch column portion of the application were due to an enforcement issue. 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 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The replacement widows are to be a “solid vinyl construction” with “Fusion welded frame and sashes.” They are white in color with a fiberglass half screen on the lower sash. They are tilt in windows for easier cleaning. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states: 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. The house, which is not listed as contributing as of the 1988 survey, is still is recognized as a record of its time. The house was built in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s. Although the bulk of the historic homes in the district are not of this period, there are two ranch style houses in the district. The wire fence along 7th Street probably predates the house. The Guidelines state on page 66: Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Fence: The majority of the front fence is the bent wire fence. The walk gate and the fence sections remains as so, but the drive gate was replaced in 2005 with a chain link gate. Later, at Staff’s request, the drive gate was painted black to match the historic gate and fence. The existing fence is bowed in places, but is still structurally sound. 4 The fence could be cleaned of its’ rust and repainted in a black paint for metal applications as the Secretary of Interior Stands state in section 2 and 6 as quoted above. Portions of the east fence was bent wire fence but was replaced with a wood privacy fence in the 2007 COA. The proposal is to replace the fence with an ornamental iron fence as shown below. Gate and Fence Detail Existing front gate Existing fence and fence to east Existing drive gate and fence to west 5 The fence features square posts with ball finials. The fence has three rails with two near the top. The pickets do not have finials, but ground points. The walk gate will feature an arched top with a cross bar pattern in the center of the gate. The driveway gate will be flat across the top with a cross bar pattern on it. The driveway gate will be motorized to swing into the property. The bent wire is historic to the district, although not of the same period as the house. It does need to be maintained in a better fashion, as it needs sanded, primed, and painted. The proposed fence is simple enough in design to be compatible with the district. If constructed to a similar height as the other adjacent fences, it could “fit in” with the neighborhood. Windows: The windows are double hung wood windows with weights and pulleys. The windows are in need of repair as some of the cords may have been broken/removed and some of the windows do not close properly. The existing windows as shown on the left above are 8 over 8 windows. (The window pictured on the left is open.) The security bars have been on the house since at least 1978. The proposed windows are shown to be a six over six window of all vinyl construction with a fiberglass half screen as shown below left. Existing window Proposed Window The Secretary of Interior Standards states that repairing is preferable to replacement. If something is replaced, it should be replaced with similar materials. See page two of this report for the actual quote. The wood double hung windows should be examined by a contractor skilled in historic preservation techniques to show that the windows are deteriorated beyond repair. If a sash has rotten wood on it, a wood sash can be custom made for the window. Cords to operate the windows can be replaced and make the windows operable. The applicant has not provided proof that the windows are beyond repair. 6 The applicant has proposed an all vinyl window as replacement windows. The secretary of the Interiors standards state in number 6 as quoted on page 2 of this report that if replaced, it “shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.” Vinyl windows with a simulated 6 over 6 do not match the old windows in design, visual thickness of jambs and muntins/mullions, and most importantly materials. Plastic vinyl windows were not available when the house was constructed. If the windows were proven repairable, Staff would suggest the repair of the windows according to restoration standards and the installation of storm windows with full screens that would preserve the original windows while improving energy efficiency of the home. Storm windows with operable lower sashes would maintain the functionality of the windows. If the windows do prove to be beyond repair, Staff believes the alternatives to be (listed in priority from highest to lowest): 1) replacement all wood sashes with higher efficiency glass utilizing the existing pulleys and weights, 2) replacement of the sashes with a wood sash clad in metal or vinyl utilizing different movement and locking mechanisms, or 3) replacement of the entire window unit with a wood window clad in metal or vinyl. All of these options should maintain the 8 over 8 pane arrangement. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Fence Replacement: Approval with the following conditions: a) Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval. b) Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. c) Fence, openers, and all hardware to be painted black. d) No portion of fence structure shall be located in the right of way, nor swing into the right of way. e) Operation of gate shall be remotely operated, without the control box, control panel, etc being placed on a pole in the right of way or on the property. 2) Window Replacement: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 The commission was informed that the applicant had not completed the notice of adjoining property owners as required. The applicant had been informed by Staff that she had not met her deadline for notification. Staff requested a deferral until the July 2008 hearing. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to defer and Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded. The motion to defer was passed with a vote or 4 ayes and 1 absent. 7 STAFF UPDATE: June 9, 2008 The applicant has requested that her item be deferred to the August 2008 agenda. Staff supports the request for deferral. Staff will provide an updated Staff report at that time to include all enforcement items that have been included in this item. COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 There was a discussion of the bylaws concerning the number of deferrals that an applicant can request and the 12-month prohibition of not resubmitting the same application. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to defer and Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion to defer was passed with a vote or 3 ayes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: August 18, 2008 The following is an analysis of the enforcement items that were revealed during an onsite visit to the site. There are three items under enforcement: 1) Ceiling fan on the front porch, 2) Exterior lighting on front façade, and 3) Satellite dish on front façade. Ceiling Fan: The Guidelines state on Ceiling fans on page 70: Ceiling fans on porches should be mounted high enough so that they cannot be seen from the street. The photos at the right show the added ceiling fan. All photos for this report were taken from the public right-of-way. As the photo shows, the fan is clearly visible from the street. A “hugger” fan, without the mounting pole, would have been less visible from the street. The ceiling of the porch is white/off white and so is the fan; which minimizes the fan somewhat. Exterior Lighting: The guidelines state on page 68: 1. Lighting attached to a building Original lights should be preserved. If fixtures are added, they should be from the period of the structure, or if new, simple in design, based on traditional designs of the early twentieth century. They should be mounted Photo of front of house on April 21, 2005 Close-up of ceiling fan on May 20, 2008 8 on porch ceilings or on the exterior wall adjacent to the primary entrance. Fixtures to avoid are carriage lamps or any fixtures evocative of a period earlier than the building. 3. Security lighting These lights such as flood lights, should intrude as little as possible on the integrity of the neighborhood. They should be mounted on secondary and rear facades. Shields should focus the light down, not at neighboring property. Two lights have been placed on the front of the house, one on the east and one on the west side. The picture to the right is the east side of the house showing the new light fixture. A matching fixture is on the west side of the house in the same relative location. The lights are not on the exterior wall adjacent to the primary entrance as the guidelines suggest - that placement would have been between the door and the closest window. These fixtures, while not apparent as a historic reproduction, do invoke a period earlier than the mid twentieth century. The guidelines are written to the bulk of the historic properties in the district, which are late 19th and early 20th century structures. This structure is one of two ranch houses from the mid 1950’s that are in the district. Therefore, placing lights of an early twentieth century design would be not appropriate for this house. If these lights are functioning as security lights, they should have been placed on the secondary facades of the house and not focus light on adjoining property as the guidelines state. Houses of this period often have/had lights on posts mounted in the front yard sidewalk to the front door an/or near the driveway. These lights were often gaslights that were converted to electric lights at a later date. A post mounted light in the front yard with a painted metal squarish lantern would be appropriate to provide security lighting. Satellite Dish: The guidelines state on page 70: Satellite dishes should never be installed in front yards or where readily visible in side yards. Close-up of east light fixture on May 20, 2008 9 This satellite dish has been mounted on the roof on the northeast portion of the roof and is visible from 7th Street. The Guidelines do not cover mounting satellite dishes on the roof, but do discuss visibility from the street. Satellite dishes have changed over time. Once they were four or more feet in diameter and were very visible from all angles. Now they are less than 2 feet wide and are typically mounted on roofs. They do require specific placement to work properly. The placement of the dish needs to point to the south with as little tree interference as possible and be at the prescribed angle based on the latitude of the structure. If a house has an orientation with the front of the house facing north, the best placement of the dish, to work effectively, is to place the dish on the north side of the roof, hence the front of the structure. While this is not the optimum location of the dish, it is probably the best location on this structure. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Fence Replacement: Approval with the following conditions: a) Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval. b) Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. c) Fence, openers, and all hardware to be painted black. d) No portion of fence structure shall be located in the right of way, nor swing into the right of way. e) Operation of gate shall be remotely operated, without the control box, control panel, etc being placed on a pole in the right of way or on the property. 2) Window Replacement: Denial 3) Ceiling Fan: Approval. 4) Lighting fixtures: Denial 5) Satellite Dish: Approval with the condition to remove it if service with the supplier is ever discontinued. COMMISSION ACTION: August 18, 2008 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation on 501 East 7th Street. Commissioner Bob Woods asked if it is not clear that this is a historic property, a non- contributing property, how appropriate are the guidelines for this property. City Attorney Debra Weldon answered that it was not a legal issue. Mr. Minyard stated that it was in the district, state statute, and the ordinance talk about the additions to the house and Close-up of satellite dish on May 20, 2008 10 that the Guidelines should be applied. The commission should analyze if it is appropriate to the age of the house. Commissioner Wood spoke about the national act to establish the historic districts and non-contributing structures. Ms. Weldon responded that the Federal law established the state law and the state enabled the city ordinance and the commission should review in accordance to the historic integrity of the neighborhood. It is still unclear in his mind of the relevance of the guidelines to this structure. Mr. Minyard stated that this issue could be added to the work program to be decided this afternoon. Commissioner Julie Wiedower added that it was in the district and the commission is to protect the sense of the district, not just the individual contributing structures. Commissioner Wood asked Staff to clarify the statement "the house was a record of its time." Mr. Minyard stated that the house being built in the 50’s and 60’s, it reflects what was typically built in the 50’s and 60’s. Mr. Minyard stated that the required notices were mailed and that the notice to the city was received by Mr. Minyard. The applicant, Tonya Robinson Fisher made a presentation of her items stating why she desired the changes – mainly security with additional lighting. She introduced her husband John Fisher. John Fisher spoke in favor of the application talking about unwanted neighbors and dark areas around the house. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that other houses in the neighborhood had vinyl windows and that she could obtain an 8-panel window. She continued that she has worked hard to bring her property up while mindful of the integrity of the neighboring properties. Commissioner Wood asked if the new windows were put in, if the security bars would be put back up. Ms. Robinson Fisher responded that the bars could be reinstalled and that she wished to do so. Commissioner Wood noted that the Answerfone building has security bars but that they were much less noticeable. Ms. Robinson Fisher said that she would be willing to look at other options as long as if it would not be too expensive. He asked that these bars be less obvious from the street. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the fence was iron or aluminum. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated it was iron as far as she knew. Ms. Robinson Fisher wants to be similar to the neighboring properties. Commissioner Wiedower asked when the lights were installed. Ms. Robinson Fisher said it was in the summer and that the fan was later. Commissioner Wiedower noted that the applicant was here last July to gain approval of the house being painted and the columns in the front. She continued that she was sympathetic to owners that do not 11 know that they are in a historic district, but that Ms. Robinson Fisher knew she was in a historic district. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that she thought the light fixtures were a modest change and that it was okay to change. She replaced a light that was there with a ceiling fan. She stated that she underestimated the importance of the lights in relation to the fence. Commissioner Wiedower asked if it was more expensive to run the wiring than to just replace a light. Ms. Robinson Fisher said the wiring was run on the outside of the brick. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the windows are an unusual size and asked about obtaining them to size. She asked if anything was going to be filled in. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that three companies could make them in the same size with 8 over 8. She did not find anything… Commissioner Susan Bell asked about repairing the windows. Are they beyond repair? Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that she repaired two window in the back of the house. The sashes do not meet in the middle; they waste energy and are drafty. They have to be propped open. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if she had considered storm windows. Ms. Robinson Fisher said if they could find storm windows that would allow them to have fresh air, they would consider storm windows. Commissioner Walls stated that the vinyl windows replacement was the least sensitive solution to the issue. Commissioner Bell stated that storm windows could be installed on the interior of the house. Commissioner Wiedower asked Commissioner Walls if the storm windows can be installed and security bars be left in place. Commissioner Walls was unaware if this could work. Chairman Peters asked Commissioner Walls to clarify if he was opposed to the vinyl windows. Commissioner Walls would prefer the storm windows versus vinyl windows. Commissioner Wood commented on the philosophical difference of the storm windows being added or replacing the windows in an application like this, especially on a non- contributing structure. He is sensitive to preserve the historic district and it’s integrity. It is probably a mass produced windows, not a significant architectural value. The view from the street would be difficult to see the difference. He is assuming that the goal was to mimic the windows. He continued that he thought it was preferable to replace a window rather than to slap a storm window over it. Commissioner Walls commented that there is a visual difference in the vinyl and the storm windows and that he did not want to imply that putting a storm window on it was preferable with replacing it with an appropriate window. Chairman Marshall Peters commented that the Historic District Commission is charged with protecting each structure as we found it. Every building can be a contributing structure at a later time. If changes are allowed to be made, it could be made non- 12 contributing at that time. The commission is charged with preservation of each structure. From the New Orleans conference, there was a program on the use of vinyl windows. To recoup the cost of replacing the windows takes 22 years. If a vinyl window breaks, the whole window must be replaced, as opposed to a wood window where one part can be replaced. Commissioner Wiedower asked if she got a quote on wood window replacements. Ms. Robinson Fisher replied that it was too expensive. She did not have an actual quote, but the contractor stated it was a lot more expensive. Commissioner Wiedower encouraged her to get actual bids, contractors are used to installing one type of windows, therefore may not give consideration to other types of windows. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated it costs too much to replace them in wood. Mr. Fisher stated that if the windows were repaired, they would still be single pane windows and not as efficient as the new windows. Commissioner Walls stated that he would not recommend replacing a wood window with a non-wood clad window. Ideally, a clad window is a better quality window. You can get a broad spectrum of quality of windows. Some have applied muntins. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked for additional time to seek out a window that would be suitable to us and something that would be approved by the commission. Commissioner Wood restated the options on the windows: 1) repair the windows on the front with storm windows on the outside or inside and have vinyl in the back, 2) a solid wood clad window all over and 3) storm windows all over. Commissioner Bell stated that the 8 over 8 were unique and it should be preserved. Commissioner Walls asked the applicant to consider a different option for the front façade windows versus the side. The commission does have a responsibility to the front facade of the structure. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not have issues with the fence, satellite dish, or ceiling fan. She is prepared to take action on those tonight. She is concerned with what the process would be to come back with a different application. There was a discussion on the time restraints of reapplying, deferring an application, at the applicants request or the commissions request. Commissioner Wiedower asked the applicant about the timeline for the changes. Commissioner Wood clarified that those time frames were maximums. Commissioner Walls asked for clarification on the application being voted on in its entirety versus removing or deferring part of the application. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked if the reapplication would require additional mailing and abstract list. Mr. Minyard stated that the abstract list could be reused and the cost would be for the mailing. The city does the legal ad. 13 Chairman Peters asked can we suspend bylaws for a deferral – continue to next month for a portion of the application? Ms. Weldon asked for some time to review it. Commissioner Walls asked what the intent would be for that. Commissioner Wiedower stated it would be for the re-notification costs. Boyd Maher, AHPP, spoke to the commission to discourage replacement windows. The 50-year rule for contributing is a guideline; New York uses a 30-year rule. As preservationists, we are not to just protect appearance, but to consider materials also. Vinyl windows will fail after 10 to 12 years. Wood windows can be repaired; AHPP can provide energy conservation tips and brochures. Commissioner Wiedower asked if AHPP had a contractor list for repairs. Mr. Maher said that he would provide a list of contractors. Mr. Maher said that the cost of repair is irrelevant, if appropriate to the structure. An economic hardship should be a separate discussion. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the charge was to have a vibrant neighborhood and that there is a subjective nature to the COA’s and guidelines. Mr. Maher stated that the cost should be factored in individually. Each structure should be judged individually. Commissioner Wood admires zeal of the AHPP. One goal is to balance philosophy with reality. Part of it is to establish community and part of concern is to make it affordable to maintain houses. If HDC becomes too strict, miss a point there of living there and creating a neighborhood. Chairman Peters asked if the commission was to ask a CPA to provide records if a hardship were stated. Commissioner Walls remembered some discussion of the hardship of the owner versus hardship of the property. Is it economically feasible to spend that much money on the house? Ms. Weldon said that the statute states that it is economic hardship to the applicant. Commissioner Bell said that there was an example of internal windows at the Egyptian house on Broadway. Ms. Weldon said in section 23-118, the bylaws are based on ordinance. The application can reschedule an application to defer an application. Commissioner Wiedower said that she was comfortable deferring all or part of application but did not get sense from the applicant on what they wanted. Chairman Peters stated it was up to the applicant. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked for a deferral on the windows portion of the item. Chairman Peters stated it could only be deferred thirty days. Mr. Minyard stated that in the application packet a submittal must be in to staff three weeks prior to the meeting, which would be today which would mean that there is not time. Commissioner Wood noted that the deferral on the windows and lighting. There was more discussion on windows. Commissioner Wiedower stated she was not comfortable with the lighting and was not ready to approve the request. 14 Ms. Robinson Fisher stated she replaced the lighting because the motion detector lighting did not work properly. They had rotted the wood of the soffits. Commissioner Wiedower commented that these could be installed without the motion detector and just turn them on with a switch when you want them on. Commissioner Walls commented that the decorative fixture was not appropriate and that he was okay with the replacement of the security lighting. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the Staff had any ideas on this issue. Mr. Minyard stated that they do make a light fixture similar to what was there before but are better sealed against water, placed against soffit. The bulbs are orientated so that they do not take on such amount of water. Staff could support gong back with a better quality two light security light with or without a motion detector. The existing lights could be used in the back yard. Commissioner Bell commented on the placement of the lights and which board they rotted. Commissioner Wood asked if Staff would have an issue if the applicant replaced the fixtures with a more appropriate style of light. Mr. Minyard said that it then becomes a location of the fixture issue and the location was inappropriate. Chairman Peters stated that code would not allow the wire brought down as it is shown. Mr. Minyard clarified that the appropriate locations for decorative lights would be next to the door between it and the next window. Security lights with or without the motion detector would be appropriate on the corners of the house on the soffits or eaves. Replacing the security lights would be a maintenance issue. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the COA with staff recommendation regarding the fence, fan, and satellite dish with recommendation of staff. She continued to move to deny the lighting fixtures and defer the window replacement. Staff clarified which meeting it was to be deferred to. Ms. Robinson Fisher said that it would not be possible. Ms. Weldon stated the commission cannot defer specific parts of the item. It would be in effect granting two COA’s She did not recommend that the motion stand. Staff offered that Staff could do the mailing on the next COA. Ms. Robinson Fisher must reapply whether she was denied or she withdrew the windows or lighting. Commissioner Walls seconded motion. Based on counsel’s advice, Commissioner Wiedower withdrew her motion. Commissioner Wiedower asked Ms. Robinson Fisher if she wanted to remove the windows from the application. If it does not add significant amounts of money, she will do it. Commissioner Wiedower made another motion to approve the application with the exception of window replacement being withdrawn from consideration by applicant and 15 approve fence, ceiling fan, satellite dish as per staff recommendations. She moved that the lighting fixtures be denied. Ms. Robinson Fisher would like to offer withdrawal of window replacements from the application. She plans to re-file in October. Commissioner Wood asked the applicant to remove the lighting from the application and feels that a compromise could be reached. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked to request the have lights deferred to October meeting. Commissioner Wiedower withdrew motion. Commissioner Wiedower made a final motion to approve the COA as requested with withdraw of lighting and windows and approve fence, ceiling fan and satellite dish per staff recommendations. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion passed with 5 ayes. There was a five-minute recess following this item. 16 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. DATE: August 18, 2008 APPLICANT: Rosalind “Michelle” Welch, 1004 Commerce Street ADDRESS: 1004 Commerce Street COA REQUEST: Addition to rear of house, roof replacement, siding replacement, picket fence in front with arbor and exterior lighting. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1004 Commerce Street. The property’s legal description is “ the south 47.5 feet of the east 89.0 feet of Lot 10 and the N 1/2 of Lot 9, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local significance. 1988 survey lists the property as a ca. 1910 Colonial Revival house and a contributing structure. The application is for an 1) addition to rear of house, 2) roof replacement, 3) siding replacement, 4) picket fence in front with arbor and 5) exterior lighting. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 1, 2000, an administrative approval to replace a cedar shingle roof with a roof of same material with no changes to roof slope and no introduction of new architectural detailing or materials was granted. 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 17 Existing front east elevation 1978 photo Existing north elevation Existing south elevation PROPOSAL: 1) addition to rear of house, 2) roof replacement, 3) siding replacement, 4) picket fence in front with arbor and 5) exterior lighting. 1) Addition to the rear of the house The proposed addition is a 16’ by 30’ addition across the entirety of the back of the house for a sunroom, mud room and expanded bathroom. The darkish “L” shaped feature is a stairway to the attic for storage access. Windows: There will be no new windows on the south side of the addition. There will be three 3’x6’ windows on the north side of the addition, there will be one 2’x6’ window on either side of the French door on the west side of the addition. There will also be an Proposed plan of addition 18 oval window above the French door. In addition, on the west façade, there will be a 4’x4’ window. The windows will be single hung Alenco windows, white in color. Doors: There will be a exterior door on the south side of the addition located in the mud room with no widows in the door. There is a proposed French door facing west located in the sunroom. The photo provided in the packet “Capture the Outdoors” is similar to the improvements described by the applicant. There will be an oval window above the door instead of the modified Palladian window. Roofing on the new addition: The sunroom portion of the addition will have a gable end roof as shown in the “Capture” photo. The mudroom area will have a shed roof slanting to the west that will tie into the existing and proposed roofs. The shingles will be Tamco Architectural shingles, weatherwood in color. The proposal is to re-roof the entire house. The siding on the addition would be Hardiplank 8” smooth lap siding. The color would be pale yellow with light colored trim. 2) Roof Replacement The roof replacement will replace the cedar shake roof with architectural shingles. The shingles will be Tamco Architectural shingles, weatherwood in color. The proposal is to reroof the entire house. 3) Siding Replacement Proposed North Elevation with addition Proposed South Elevation with addition Capture the Outdoors photo 19 The proposal is to replace the wood siding on the original house with Hardiplank 8” smooth lap siding. The trim pieces would remain from the original house if in good order. If replaced, they would be replaces with the same size lumber. 4) Picket Fence in Front with Arbor The picket fence would be across the entirety of the front of the property along Commerce Street and return tot the existing fences on the north and south sides of the house. The applicant states the fence will be” no taller than 36” tall, pickets no wider that 4 inches wide and nor further than three inches apart. The design will be compatible and proportionate to the house. It will be made of wood and painted white or cream dependant on the trim color I use for the house.” The arbor will me made to duplicate the one shown below. 5) Exterior Lighting The details of the lamppost and lighting to be added to the front yard were not provided to the Staff for review. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: 1) Addition to the rear of the house The zoning of the site is R-4A that has a 25’ setback for the rear yard. This addition will abut or go over the setback, which would require a Board of Adjustment Variance. The addition is difficult to see from the street, so it is questionable fi the commission should hear the case. However, the addition of the fence, the replacement of the siding, and the reroofing dictates that a public hearing is held. It appears that the new window on the south side of the structure is in the original block of the house. This would involve removing, replacing, or adding a window to the original structure. In the photo above, labeled “Existing South Elevation” the photo shows two vertical windows (one over one). Staff is not supportive of removing two original windows and adding this new window, especially a square windows that does reflect the Location of fence in front yard Proposed Arbor on Commerce Street 20 original verticalness of all the existing windows on the original block of the house. Modifying a size of an existing window or adding a new window is not recommended in the guidelines as stated on page 52 as quoted below: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. According to the website, the proposed windows are all vinyl. The applicant will need to verify that in the public hearing. Having vinyl windows on an addition that is clearly designed and readable as such, is not the same as replacement vinyl windows in the original structure. The vinyl windows actually make the addition read more clearly that it is a addition. Staff is supportive of the window choice in the addition only, not for the 4’ x 4’ window replacement. Staff does recognize that the 4x4 window is located in he bathroom. However, drapes, blinds, or window film can be used to block the view from outside. The guidelines state on page 62 under additions (new Rooms) that: Additions should be of a compatible design, in keeping with the original structure’s character, roof shape, materials, and the alignment of window, door, and cornice height. Additions include porches and bay windows, as well as entire wings or rooms. They should be located on the rear façade and be subordinate to the original structure. The original building and the addition should be differentiated in a manner so that the addition looks new and does not duplicate the original structure. The siding and roofing may be different from the original block of the house. Those changes, along with decreasing the size of the addition 12-18” on the north and south facades will create a break form the original block of the house. This would result in an addition 27’ to 28’ wide instead of 30’ wide. The roofing (architectural shingles) and siding (Hardiplank smooth lap siding) could be different with a logical break in this scenario. The elevations provide show that the cornice height of the addition will be the same as the original. This will aid to tie the addition to the original house while maintaining separation of the addition. The roof over the sunroom is a gable. There are two other gables on the main block, on facing east and one facing north as shown in the 1978 photo earlier in the report. The rest of the addition will be a shed roof. These roof types proposed are either already on the house or are a common means of covering additions to the rear of a house of this era. 21 2) Roof Replacement The applicant has stated the there has been issues with squirrels living in her attic and has provided a photo of the damage where they enter her roof. The Guidelines state on page 58: Roofs should be preserved in their original size, shape, and pitch, with original features (cresting, chimneys, finials, cupolas, etc.) and, if possible, with original roofing material (slate, tile, metal.) Composition shingles may be used if the original material is not economically feasible. Dark colors are best for historic buildings. If the overall roof is still watertight, this is only a maintenance issue to repair the squirrel damage. The applicant has not noted that the roof is leaking, only that there is squirrel damage. Staff recommends that the applicant repair the roof, not replace it. 3) Siding Replacement On page 50 of the guidelines, it states: Historic siding materials, such as weatherboard, wood shingles, and stucco, should be preserved. If original siding materials must be replaced, the new siding should match the original as closely as possible, especially with respect to board size. Original corner boards should be duplicated in their full original dimensions. The applicant has provided photos of squirrel damage to the exterior of her home. The applicant has not provided proof that the siding is uniformly rotted or non-water tight overall. Again, Staff feels that this is a maintenance issue and that individual board should be replaced to remove the threat of squirrels living in the attic. Siding can be obtained locally for the repair work. Staff is not supportive of the removal of the original siding. 4) Picket Fence in Front with Arbor The applicant has proposed a front picket fence using the language for picket fences found on page 66. She has also proposed an arbor with gate as shown earlier in this report. The materials used and the technique used should distinguish this as a modern element. Staff is supportive of the fence as described by the applicant and a duplication of the arbor as shown in the photo. 5) Exterior Lighting Staff recommendation forthcoming on the exterior lighting based on the submittal of the actual materials. Roof damage attributed to squirrels 22 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 90 days of hearing. 2. Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. 3. Addition to rear of home: Staff is supportive of the addition if it does not encroach into the 25’ rear yard setback and is a width of 27’ – 28’ wide. Staff is not supportive of the 4’x4’ window on the south side. 4. Roof replacement: Staff is not supportive of replacing the cedar shake roof with architectural shingles. 5. Siding replacement: Staff is not supportive of the siding replacement. 6. Fence and Arbor; Staff is supportive of the fence and arbor. 7. Exterior Lighting: Staff recommendation forthcoming. COMMISSION ACTION: July 14, 2008 Staff informed the Commission that the legal notices had not been completed in a timely fashion. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the August 2008 meeting. Commissioner Susan Bell made a motion to defer to the August 2008 meeting as it was seconded by Commissioner Julie Wiedower. The motion passed with 3 ayes and 2 absent. COMMISSION ACTION: August 18, 2008 Staff Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item. He noted that the Staff recommendations on page 7 should be edited. The words Approval with the following conditions following the Staff Recommendations in bold should be scratched since the individual sections are noted with an approval for denial. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that in the 1978 photo it looked like there was a cedar shake roof on the house. Mr. Minyard stated it was difficult to tell from the photo in 1978 what the roof material was. In November 2000, there was an administrative approval to replace a cedar shake roof with another. Commissioner Bob Wood asked what was roofing originally. Commissioner Wesley W alls stated that the roof could have been slate, wood or metal around 1910. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the width of the exposure of the siding, Mr. Minyard stated it was in the 4 to 5 inch range. The applicant, Michelle Welch, spoke concerning the application. She bought the house in 2004 as her first home and has lived in the district since 1995. Her goal was not to infringe on the historic structure, but her goal was to maintain. She did want to make corrections on the staff report. She will not be taking out any of the original windows, the bath addition in the rear was to add windows. She will repair the original windows. 23 Ms. Welch stated that she has to make repairs to the roof every year at a substantial cost and would like to replace the roof. There is hole in the gable end where the squirrels have eaten through the siding, has electrical issues from the squirrel, and has carpenter ants on the south side of the house. Chairman Marshall Peters stated he understands the carpenter ant issue and asked about the repair work. He suggested that if Thompson’s water seal, or something similar, was applied to the roof, it would deter the squirrels eating through the roof. Commissioner Bob Wood asked if the roof was leaking now and squirrels eat siding as well. Ms. Welch stated that the roof was not leaking now. He asked if squirrels ate through Hardiplank. Commissioner Wiedower stated that squirrels would not eat Hardiplank, based on personal experience. Ms. Welch stated that her house was individually listed on the national register. Boyd Maher stated that it could be delisted for a change of siding materials. Commissioner Wiedower asked if she had any history on the house. Ms. Welch does have some history on the home and thinks the cedar shakes were applied in the 1980’s. Commissioner Wiedower commented on the drawings in the rear, that the roof pitch might not work on the rear as shown in the sketches. She asked about the reduction of the width of the addition on the rear. Ms. Welch verbally amended her application to have the rear addition to be 28’ or less in width. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked questions about the roof, a shed roof on one sketch, but a gable on the other sketch. Mr. Minyard clarified the roof on the original house (a hip roof with two gables). He continued that the new addition would have a gable over the sunroom with a hip roof over the mudroom joining the hip roof of the original house. The fascia and soffit would be consistent with the rest of the house. Commissioner Wiedower commented about the south elevation. The roof drawings are in conflict with each other. Commissioner Wood asked what is the purpose of the mudroom is. Ms. Welch answered it was for the dogs and the washer dryer. Commissioner Walls stated that since the addition was not as visible from the street, he was okay with the sketchy drawings. The soffits and fascia will be duplicated on the new structure. Jake Yancy, the applicant’s contractor, said that he could find a concrete siding to match the existing. Chairman Peters asked if they had been in the attic. Mr. Yancy responded that there are slats for the roof decking. Ms. Welch was sharing a verbal history for the roof. Commissioner Walls stated it was not unusual for later projects to add asphalt shingles over cedar shakes. That could have happened at that house. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they were fairly rustic shakes. The answer was yes. Ms. Welch said the architectural shingles would be similar in appearance. 24 Mr. Yancy stated that the property was at a crossroads with a lot of repetitive damage to the structure. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the squirrels were going through the gable vent. The squirrels go from the gable return into the house. On the gable, it is appropriate to put heavy wide screen to deter squirrels. Commissioner Wiedower is at a dilemma but cannot vote for replacements of siding. She has lived with squirrel damage. Ms. Welch said she was open to suggestions about the siding. Commissioner Wiedower said that she liked Hardiplank, but it is a change to the historic fabric and cannot justify removing all of the historic fabric. Ms. Welch asked if she could replace portions with Hardiplank. Commissioner Wiedower said no, it would be too obvious where it was replaced. Commissioner Wood stated he was blessed with ignorance. He asked about the replacement of Hardiplank versus the original wood. From a pragmatic standpoint, Hardiplank makes sense, but not from a preservationist standpoint. He applauded living downtown. He is having a problem with preservation philosophy and reality. Ms. Welch said she wants to work with the HDC but needed viable options to maintain the property without having to do it every six months. Commissioner Wiedower stated that maybe a lack of information was the problem on the issue with the squirrels. Surely there are similar situations out there. Chairman Peters asked if her neighbors have a similar problem. Chairman Peters suggested spraying the area with a wood treatment where the return is to deter the squirrels. Sharon Welch Blair, of 2120 Louisiana, spoke in favor of the application. She spoke of the idea of reality of philosophy of pure preservation and being practical. She spoke of the issue of Hardiplank use in the district. Compromises must be made. Chairman Peters asked about using the smooth or the cedar plank Hardiplank texture. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the siding has a kerf edge. Hardiplank does not provide it with the kerf edge. Ms. Welch said there are other options to repair the wood on her hone. Boyd Maher, AHPP, referred to himself as a “pointy headed state bureaucrat.” His charge is to preserve architectural materials to the greatest extent possible. Change is allowed and inevitable. State office is opposed to the roof and siding replacement. The National Park Service is the only one to delist structures. These are the kinds of changes that will delist a property. 25 Commissioner Wiedower commented about the 51% contributing rule to keep a district on the national register. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Maher to support his statement on delisting properties. The State Review Board delists properties at their regularly scheduled meetings. Richard Butler, the chairman of that commission, is present at this meeting tonight. Commissioner Wiedower said we need suggestions or solutions to present to Ms. Welch to maintain siding. Commissioner Wood asked what kind of help do we give her. Mr. Maher said that they have full time Staff in his office to do this type of work. Ms. Welch stated she would like to cut down on continued maintenance. Richard Butler, a property owner in the same block, gave a history of the property. In the 1960’s he moved into the neighborhood, the owner at the time built a pool. The roof was removed in 1980’s and added the cedar shakes. He appreciated Commissioner Walls comment on the roof; it was wood, slate, or metal. Roofs have to be replaced on regular basis. Mr. Butler stated on the addition, it is not our concern. If the new construction is discernable from the original house, it is okay. The new addition can be sided in either Hardiplank or synthetic. Referred to the restoring the first Hotze house at 1620 Main Street had on problems with the siding and issues in following the guidelines. On this case, this is a local ordinance district, and you are reviewing it based on local criteria. On the roof replacement, he suggested roof replacement. The block is a historic squirrel sanctuary and the squirrels have been there before he had. On the siding replacement, he suggested that the commission enforce the use of wood to replace wood. On the picket fence and arbor, he has no problem with it. He has no comment on the lighting but hopefully the light is not blinding lighting that was in your eyes. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Butler for his rational for reroofing the house. It was stated that it was Mr. Butler’s personal opinion, and it differs from Secretary of the Interior standards. He shared his experience in reroofing the Hotze house. If there are three or more layers of roof on the house, it should be removed weight on the house. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not have an issue with the roofing, but the issue is different from the siding. Commissioner Walls discussed Mr. Butler’s last comments. Mr. Butler commented that the squirrel problem is more than mine is, but would yield to experts on siding versus squirrels. Mr. Butler, as Chairman of the State Review Board, has delisted properties for demolition, fire, moved from locations and inappropriate changes. Commissioner Wood 26 wanted to clarify what was meant by inappropriate changes. If the house was delisted and the total of the contributing falls below 50%, then the whole neighborhoods would be affected. Mr. Maher stated he is not concerned with the addition or Hardiplank on addition. Ms. Welch said that if she can find viable alternative to Hardiplank, she would do it. She did not want to so something to delist the structure. Commissioner Walls asked about the lighting. Ms. W elch stated it would be a lamppost in the front yard. She asked to amend her application so that the lighting is removed from the application and come back at a different time on that issue. Commissioner Walls asked if the siding is denied, would it take one year to come back and reapply. Ms. Welch asked about what constitutes a substantial change. She continued that she needs to replace a lot of siding on the house and suspects that she might have additional foundation problems. Ms. Welch asked to amend her application to remove the siding from the application. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the original siding does matter; a reproduction does not give the same results. Chairman Peters discussed the different types of wood for replacement of the original siding that needs attention. Commissioner Wood clarified the motion amendment was for the original structure only. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as submitted with withdrawal of item 5 (siding replacement) and 7 (lighting) with staff recommendations as amended by the applicant. The application voiced withdrawal of the items. Commissioner Bell seconded. The item passed with 5 ayes. Debra Weldon, City attorney, left the hearing at this time. 27 III. Other Matters a Enforcement issues Staff has been busy with enforcement issues this month. Item numbers refer to enforcement chart date 8/18/08. Item 11: the Arc Arkansas has continued to make progress on the site. Item 12 was resolved tonight with signature from owner. Item 13 was resolved tonight. Item 14 through 22, letters have gone out and some have proof of letter of them being received. Item 15: received notice on 12th of August. Staff would like guidance from Commission on how long to give owner to put their windows back before we take them to court. He discussed two windows and screen in rear yard. Item 19: would have been maintenance issue if they had come in earlier. The green card has come back to the Staff. Commissioner Wiedower asked that the Staff add date for calling back on template letter that was mailed out. The Staff was instructed to send second notice or contact by phone on item 15. Chairman Peters stated that the letter sent was a courtesy reminder and that the next notice should be sent by the enforcement office. Commissioner Wood states that it is preferable to spend money ahead of time to notify people of the responsibilities to live in a historic district. Chairman Peters said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The commission should not have to baby sit and hold hands but do not want to be adversarial. Commissioner Wiedower said it was a different issue when they are repeat offenders. Staff brought a Certificate of Compliance that was signed for Mary Simmons for roof repair. b Preservation Plan Update Staff has received many emails for the meeting on August 27th. The meeting is at Curran hall from 4-6 pm. Boyd Maher asked if he could attend the meeting. An invitation was extended. Mr. Thomason is coming in on Tuesday and Wednesday. Commissioner Wiedower asked for a link to a preservation plan. Staff will send the Fort Worth Plan link. c Workshop Items Please return the sheets on the workshop items to Staff as soon as possible with an email or otherwise. Highest ranked items will be discussed first. Marshall Peters wanted a list of the terms for all commissioners. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the Staff would send a stock letter to thank them or congratulate them on a good job. Staff said that could be done. Commissioner Wood asked for a plaque, but Staff said that budget restraints would probably just be a letter.