Loading...
HDC_10 13 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, October 13 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 Julie Wiedower Susan Bell Bob Wood Members Absent: Randy Ripley City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Eve Gieringer Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Tonya Robinson Fisher John Fisher II. Approval of Minutes a. August 18, 2008 b. September 8, 2008 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of August 18, 2008 as submitted. Commissioner Bob Wood seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. A motion was made by Commissioner Bob Wood to approve the minutes of September 8, 2008 as amended. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: October 13, 2008 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson-Fisher ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Install storm windows 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 “Install storm windows.” The storm windows are custom built and have a white metal frame, full screens, and two movable panes of glass. 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 paint ing of the brick structure and the front porch column portion of the application were due to an enforcement issue. On August 11, 2008, a COA was issued for the satellite dish, ceiling fan and iron fence. The exterior lights and window replacements were n ot approved at that hearing. 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: Storm Windows: The guidelines state on page 52: Screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in dark colors and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames. Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may also be mounted on the inside of windows. Half screen and screen or storm windows smaller than original window, are not recommended. The proposed storm windows comply with the guidelines with the exception of the dark color of the frames. The brick of the house was painted in 2007. Before that, the house was red brick. At both times, the trim of the windows was a white or off white. The 1978 and the 1988 photos show a light color trim on the house. Therefore, the white color storm windows would be the less obtrusive of the colors available for the finish of the storm windows. The applicant has stated that she is planning to retain her security bars. The guidelines on page 53 state that security bars should not be visible from the street. In the August 11, 2008 hearing, the applicant agreed to explore the options of making the security bars less obtrusive. Staff feels that with the white/off white trim color, the white wood windows and the white storm windows, the security bars would be the less obtrusive if they were painted white. They would be the least visible from the street while providing security. It is yet to be seen if with the new storm windows will fit between the existing windows and the storms. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Storm Windows: 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. COMMISSION ACTION: October 13, 2008 Eve Gieringer, Staff, made a presentation for the item. All legal notices were mailed by Staff. Front elevation of house. 4 Tonya Robinson Fisher, the applicant, did not make a presentation of the item at this time. Chairman Marshall Peters asked what if the bars do not fit back in the windows after the storm windows are installed. Mr. John Fisher responded that if they do not fit, they will be taken down and he had no problem removing them if they did not fit. Commissioner Susan Bell brought in photos today of security bars that had been painted white and how they were not a s visible as the black painted ones. The commissioners looked at the photos and the applicants did. Commissioner Julie Wiedower noted that it was with white windows coverings. Commissioner Wiedower asked that they strongly consider painting the security bars white the next time they painted them. She continued that she appreciated the applicant’s willingness to consider storm windows versus the other windows that were proposed earlier. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. 5 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: October 13, 2008 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson-Fisher ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Install exterior lighting 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 “Install exterior lighting.” The exterior lights are an “outdoor wall lantern” with four sides of glass, and squarish in design. Th is application is a result of an enforcement item. 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. On August 11, 2008, a COA was issued for the satellite dish, ceiling fan and iron fence. The exterior lights and window replacements were not approved at that hearing. 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 6 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: 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 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 floodlights 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 not be 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. Close-up of east light fixture on May 20, 2008 Proposed light fixture 7 Houses of this period often have/had lights on posts mounted in the front yard near the sidewalk to the front door an/or near the driveway. These lights we re often gaslights that were converted to electric lights later. A post mounted light in the front yard with a painted metal squarish lantern would be appropriate to provide security lighting. The applicant has proposed new lights for the front façade of the house. The proposed lights are “squarish” in design with a total height of 17.5 inches and width of 8.75 inches. They are a black powder coat finish on cast aluminum. The lights are appropriate for the period of the house, however the placement is still not. This style of light could be placed on a post in the front yard. Staff would be supportive of a non -descript white or off white two-bulb fixture mounted under the soffit of the house on each corner for security lighting. It could have the option of motion activated or a simple switch to turn them on when needed. This lighting would be the most unobtrusive option to provide security lighting for the property. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: October 13, 2008 Eve Gieringer, Staff, made a presentation for t he item of the enforcement item for exterior lighting. She stated the Staff recommendation as stated above. Chairman Marshall Peters asked if the placement was the main issue with Staff and asked if they could be put on the soffit or fascia. Ms. Gieringer stated that the lights as installed would not work placed on the soffit or fascia. She referred him to the security lights as shown on page three of the Staff report. Commissioner Bob Wood asked if this was a non -contributing structure. Staff commented that it was non-contributing. He asked if it was Staff’s contention that a ranch style home of the 1950’s must have lighting of that period. Staff commented yes. The conversation continued that the Commission was to review the application and figure out which one more in keeping with the neighborhood. Discussion continued on Suggested fixture without motion sensor device Suggested fixture with motion sensor device 8 reviewing non-contributing structures and matters of taste. Mr. Minyard explained that the Commission was not the “pretty police,” or if they “like something or not”; They are to review items for their appropriateness. He referenced the Secretary of Interior standards of “evoking and earlier period of time.” Placement is the issue on this item stated Mr. Minyard. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she was not supportive of the lights. She referenced 1950’s houses and said that there were no examples of this location for lights in various in neighborhoods of this age. Ms. Robinson Fisher said that she understood the point that was made but has seen lights on the edge of buildings. Chairman Peters stated that when the commission looks at newer structures in the district, even though they are not contributing at that point, and they will be eventually. Do you want anything to happen to the structures, or do you want them to look as they did originally, to represent the time period of their construction so that they can become a contributing structure later. Ms. Robinson Fisher said that there was not much more to her application. She preferred to keep the lights at that location and was open to change the style of the lights. She continued that she thought the security lights were downright ugly and thinks that they are obtrusive and glaring into the neighbor’s property. She said that wanted a streetlight on her side of the street. The older lights had rotted the wood fascia board and having them installed was expensive. She was willing to change the style of the lights. Commissioner Wiedower asked if Staff could get her a streetlight. Staff responded that they could put her in touch with a person to discuss it with her. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked the commission to understand where she is coming from on this issue. She commented that she had spent time and energy trying to find a solution to the problem and restated the fact of drug use in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood applauded the applicant for trying to improve her house and thought her changes had improved the neighborhood. He addressed the drug issues in her neighborhood. Commissioner Wood made a motion to approve the application for the lights as submitted. After a discussion on the failure to provide a second, Commissioner Wiedower seconded the application after clarifying that if she seconded the motion, it would not require her to vote for the app lication. The motion failed with 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. Commissioner Wiedower thanked the applicants for participating in the process and stated that she was sympathetic to the concerns of safety. She stated that the suggested lights were not intended to be attractive, but functional. If the applicant is not 9 interested in those, she suggested to the applicant to work with Staff on considering the placement of a post in the front yard with a light on it or a streetlight. Ms. Robinson Fisher asked if she wanted to place a light on a pole, would she have to come before the commission again. Chairman Peters stated that that was correct. He continued that putting the security lights back up would be a maintenance issue and would not require a COA. Mr. Minyard stated that if she put the security lights back up on the fascia or soffit, it would be considered a maintenance item if installed where they were originally. It could be wired with or without a motion detector and Staff would sign off on it because it was a maintenance item. The lights that are there now will have to come down since they have been denied. Staff has taken the position of recommending the security lights in regards to her safety. The light fixtures were the least obtrusive to get lights in the area in a repair maintenance situation. The applicant may come back to ask for different lights later. In the short term, the applicant will need to change the fixtures out. Commissioner Wiedower asked if she came back with an applicati on to install a light on a post in the front yard, would it require a COA. Staff responded yes. Debra Weldon agreed. Chairman Peters asked if the Staff could pay for the mailings if they came back for that post light. Mr. Minyard stated that one of the issues would be the accuracy of the list. He did not commit to mailing the notices. Mr. Minyard thanked Commissioner Wiedower for explaining her no vote. Chairman Peters agreed with Staff on placement of the lights. There was a small recess after this item. 10 III. Other Matters Commissioner Julie Wiedower noted that in the minutes of September 8, 2008, there was a notation of creating a baseline list of the air conditioners and security bars on houses in the district. Mr. Minyard stated that he was in posse ssion of the MacArthur Park Survey in his possession. He continued that they would copy the survey and discussions were to scan or just copy. The State is the official owner of the surveys that have paid with CLG money. Commissioner Wiedower asked who would own the Dunbar Survey since it was done with CDBG money. Mr. Minyard said he would check on that. The contract states that they must comply with AHPP regulations but the ownership is under question. Chairman Marshall Peters asked it to be scanned t o a disc instead of just a copy. Commissioner Wiedower commented that she was concerned that a citizen could be able to get copies if they wished. Mr. Minyard asked how the commission felt if the ownership of the survey went elsewhere other than a city department or the AHPP office. Chairman Peters responded he did not care who owned it, as long as the HDC has full and complete back up of the originals. Chairman Peters asked that AHPP have a copy or the original. Commissioner Wiedower asked that copies of all the surveys be housed in the Butler Center. The Commission asked the AHPP to copy all of the surveys to be housed in the Butler Center. It was encouraged to write a letter to that effect. A discussion ensued on time conditions on COA’s, in parti cular, the vacant lot on Rock Street by Answerfone. Mr. Minyard asked of Ms. Weldon if the time condition ran out, would the applicant have to reappear before the commission before proceeding with work if there was no changes. She stated that the commission would have to give permission to Staff to do that. Chairman Peters asked if a motion could be made to give permission to Staff to do so under dire circumstances. Ms. Weldon asked who determined “dire circumstances”? Chairman Peters said he had enough faith in Staff to do that. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff would be changing the motion if the Staff changed the time condition. Ms Weldon said that she would look into it and was not sure that Staff could do that. Chairman Peters said that some applicat ions needed a time restraint where others did not. Eve Gieringer stated that with the opposition to the house on Rock Street, the neighbors are counting on the time constraint and could feel betrayed by Staff If it was extended without their notification. The applicant should be involved with the time condition and agree to such in the meeting. Commissioner Bob Wood asked that the Commission be consistent in applying time conditions. Ms. Weldon stated that different scales of projects would require different time limits. a Enforcement issues The closed files have not been printed on this permits. #13, Tonya Robinson Fisher, should be closed after her lights are removed. A discussion occurred on what was approved earlier and what was considered tonight. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the nature of 524 East 6th Street. Staff responded that it was sidelights that are being restored. 504 E 6th Street, Caroline apartments: Staff asked for guidance on this matter. One of the new owners stated that the cornerstone was there when he purchased it. The 11 discussion ensued about whether it could be enforced upon when none of the current four owners installed it and the person responsible for installation was no longer an owner. Chairman Peters stated that he was not for a cornerstone being put on a building simply because the redeveloped it, but he is not sure he wants to make issue at this point. Commissioner Wiedower is unsure that the Commission can go back on a previous owner for a COA. Commissioner Bob Wood stated that the Tirado’s cam before the commission for a COA that did not include a cornerstone. Commissioner Wood thinks that she is responsible. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the time frame, and if it has been that long, she would not say to go forward. Ms. Weldon was not sure that you could proceed with enforcement with the change in property owners. She will look into this issue. Staff will look into it and see if a permit was taken. More information will be obtained and continue this conversation next month. b Preservation Plan Update Staff continues to work on this project and will continue to update the Commission on upcoming meeting and progress. c Work Plan Mr. Minyard stated that the previous items are still in the package. The Commissioners should review the “Commission Discussion and Action Synopsis” section to see if they concur. Chairman Peters stated that the first Commission decided not to regulate color. Ms. Weldon stated that in her seven years, the commission has no t done so even though it is in the statutory language. Commissioner Wood said that it troubled him that the Commission did not do it and the Commission picked and chose which parts of the law to enforce. A discussion ensued on paint color and “taste” of colors. Commissioner Wood stated that he would support the Commission regulating paint color. Commissioner Wiedower asked to ask other commissions about their paint color. Mr. Minyard reviewed the previous items and how the formatting will work. Ms. We ldon will check into the FCC regulations concerning placement of dishes. Mr. Minyard directed the Commissioners to review the suggested text on vinyl windows as shown in the package. A discussion of the definitions and suggested text was held. Commissioner Wood stated that clad windows did not exist when the houses were built. Commissioner Peters asked if the statement could be made to preserve windows that are there and replace if needed with solid wood windows. Ms. Gieringer read the section on windows on page 52 of the guidelines to the commission that addressed the issue. Chairman Peters asked that the work discouraged be used in reference to vinyl window replacements. Mr. Minyard stated that the proposed language said “not appropriate.” Ms. Gieringer suggested both not appropriate and discouraged. Commissioner Wiedower did not support “discourage” and supported the proposed Staff language.