Loading...
HDC_01 08 2018Page 1 of 23 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 8, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Dick Kelley Dale Pekar Lauren Frederick Amber Jones Robert Hodge Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Stephan McAteer Kwendeche Reginald Wright Paul Dorman Raymond Weber Richard Butler Maureen Richmond Change to Agenda Order There was a motion made by Vice Chair Russell to change the order of the agenda to move the HDC18-001 to the end of the new COAs. Commissioner Lauren Frederick seconded. There was a discussion of the bylaws and it was decided that a simple majority of the commission is required to make the change. This is a procedural matter and the Commission is waiving the order of the agenda. The motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the December 11, 2017 minutes as amended. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 23 Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online. Page 3 of 23 DATE: January 8, 2018 APPLICANT: Reginald Wright ADDRESS: 1301 Scott COA REQUEST: Garage and Deck PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1301 Scott. The property’s legal description is “Lots 1, 2, and the north half of 3, Block 21, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built c. 1887. The 2006 survey form states: “Original Queen Anne style structure with turrets, roof decoration and window designs typical of this style. Several Craftsman additions include porch and large multi-windowed addition on south. Built by Rozelle, a building contractor. It was extensively remodeled in 1919-1920 by J. R. Smallwood. Changes in renovation included porch remodel, attic conversion to 2nd floor, added sleeping porches & breakfast room.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the installation of a Garage and Deck. The garage will be located on the northeast corner of the lot with alley access and the deck will be on the southeast corner of the house. This structure is to be used as a single family residence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 8, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to John Emerson for on-site parking, fencing and bike racks. (The building was used for offices at the time.) On May 6, 2008, a COC was approved and issued to Taibi Kahler to remove inappropriate roof structure and repair flat roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. Location of Project Page 4 of 23 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is in the area of dual protection between the CZDC and the HDC and is required to be heard by the Capitol Zoning District Commission. It is placed on the December 21, 2017 CZDC hearing. The CZDC will have the final vote on this project at that time. This property is also subject to a Conservation Easement held by AHPP. See letter of approval at the end of this report. The application is for the construction of a detached garage at the northeast corner of the property at the alley shown in the upper right of the graphic to the right. Attached to the garage is a lattice screen wall to the south. The other part of the Existing north west corner of house looking east 1978 Survey photo Existing east elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map Site Plan Page 5 of 23 application is for a deck to be constructed under a second floor living space at the southeast corner of the house shown in the lower right of the graphic on the previous page. Enclosing the patio and wood deck will be a new wood fence. AC condensing units will be relocated to the alley side of the house. Garage Addition 13th Street Proposed Elevation Plan Page 6 of 23 See more graphics at the end of this report. The garage addition will be reviewed using the Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings on pages 31-40 in the December 2016 Guidelines. Refer to Guidelines for specifics. Excerpts of the Guidelines are attached to the end of this report. Siting The Garage is proposed to be placed on the alley property line and 3’ off the Scott Street property line. With this house originally sited so far back on the lot, there is not ample room to adhere to the prevailing side yard setbacks of the area of influence neither to move the garage over towards the center of the block nor to match the existing house setback of approximately 20 feet. Height The garage will feature storage in the attic with a pull down stair in a story and a half design. The garage measures approximately 21’ tall from the ground to the ridgeline of the structure. This is less than the height of the house. On the 13th Street elevation, the house is ghosted in to the right of the drawing. Proportion The proposed garage does relate well to the house. The overall height is subordinate to the main house and the numbers of window and door openings are similar in number and vertical nature. Rhythm The placements of the windows are regular and harmonious with the main house. The street view of the garage roof repeats pitches of the main house and is varied enough to relate to the house but not compete with the house’s turrets and complicated roof form. Scale The scale of the garage is appropriate to the main house. Massing The massing of the garage is appropriate to the main house. Entrance Area The garage doors will face the alley and there will be three entry doors, one on the north façade and two on the south. The entry door areas are more utilitarian, without porches which could reinforce the nature of the building, a garage. The entry door that faces 13th Street should be raised to reflect it entering at the floor level of the garage. Raising it would make it more in line with the top of the adjacent windows. Wall Areas The existing house has various materials; painted brick on the first floor, cedar shake shingles as siding on the second floor and vertical trim over what appears to be stucco on parts of the second floor addition. The siding will be Hardie Panel siding with vertical trim pieces painted to match the existing house. The garage will have 1 over 1 double hung wood windows on the 13th and Scott Street facades. The windows will be Jeld Wen wood aluminum clad windows that are 1/1. Window trim will be painted to match existing. Page 7 of 23 The entry doors will be six panel steel insulated doors, one of which will be visible from the 13th Street side. Part of the garage will be visible from Scott Street. Connecting the house to the garage will be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the window trim. Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard as well as the alley. The doors and windows are arranged vertically and symmetrically within the wall area. The first and second floors are easily discernable on the 13th Street elevation. The light fixtures will be Hampton Bay 7072 wall mounted sconces in bronze finish as shown on the right. Roof Area Roof shingle will match the existing house and the roof pitch will be 12/12. The existing shingles are a novelty architectural shingle. Façade With this being an accessory structure, the façade or the front of the building, is not as evident at with other structures. The 13th Street side will have the most impact on the street while the Scott Street side is removed from the street and is partially hid by vegetation. The 13th Street side has the appearance of an accessory structure, possible with useable space above which is common in the area. The revised drawings show vertical (flush) panel Hardie siding, painted to match existing house. The cover letter states a different product. This will need to be clarified by the applicant at the meeting. Detailing The detailing of the building more closely matches the Craftsman period of the building instead of the Queen Anne period. A horizontal belt board circumscribes the building at the base and at the second floor level. Site Features Connecting the house to the garage will be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the window trim. Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard as well as the alley. The gates are shown to blend into the fence. The handicap ramp that is currently on the northeast side of the house will be removed and new steps will be constructed to the existing door. See photo on page 2 and graphic on page 10. A concrete patio will be poured between the house and the garage but will not be visible from the street. Deck Addition The deck addition will be reviewed using the Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions on pages 27-29 in the December 2016 Guidelines. The deck is proposed to be added to an area under a second floor living area. This area currently houses the four air conditioner condensing units. These will be moved to the east side of the house along the alley. The proposed deck will be a wood deck with steps down to a new concrete or concrete paver patio. The deck may not be visible from Scott Street, but is included in this analysis. The wood fence to be installed along the alley way will be visible. It is to be a lattice fence with detail shown on the previous page. Wall sconce Page 8 of 23 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Approval of CZDC. 2. Removal of any business signage on the property. This does not include identification signage of historic name and construction date of house. 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dale Pekar had questions about the drawings. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant should be able to answer those questions for him. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked if this application was going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Minyard said that it was not going to the BOA. It wa s going to Capitol Zoning Commission because it was in the overlap area where both commissions protect property. Mr. Reginald Wright, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Pekar stated that there was a lot of horizontal siding in the neighborhood but this has a vertical aspect. One drawing notes this as a flush panel. He said that some flush panels are non-descript and did not match the neighborhood. Mr. Wright said that they were trying to match the house and they chose the area of a second floor addition to not compete with the Queen Anne style. Commissioner Pekar commented on the board at the bottom of the windows and felt that the belt board was too high in relation to the bottom of the windows. He also asked if the masonry at the bottom was faux brick. Mr. Wright said it was the masonry type. He continued that it sits three feet from the sidewalk. They were trying to fit it in the space. The question arose whether to have a two or three garage. The Garage doors will be steel insulated garage doors. Fence Detail Page 9 of 23 Mr. Wright clarified the client was downsizing and would like to have the cars inside a garage. Once the garage was detached, and the space between it and the house created a seating area courtyard. Commissioner Pekar stated that the garage should blend in as well as possible to protect the area. Commissioner Russell said he would echo Commissioner Pekar’s viewpoint on the siding. Being a corner lot, the house has two front doors; the main elevation as well as the 13th Street side. He continued that the siding is not compatible. He commented on the house at 1300 Cumberland and both had to respect the side yard setbacks along 13th Street. Vertical board and batten would be appropriate, but a flush siding is not. True board and batten would be even better. He did have a small issue with the height. He continued that if the man doors were lost and part of the façade was pushed back, it would be better. He asked about the details on the deck. Mr. Wright stated that he would provide details on the deck. It will be a typical construction with a three foot railing and no intricate details. On the siding, he referenced Wali Caradine’s detached garage that he thinks butts up to the property line. That is a two story garage building instead of this one and one half story garage. Chair Dick Kelley stated that he did not have any heartburn over the three foot setback. 13th Street is a low traffic street. The layout is more convenient t o use the side entrances from the garage. Vice Chair Ted Holder asked about the back door to the house. There was a discussion on where the back door was. The back door is on the east side of the house where the current handicap ramp is and faces north. Vice Chair Holder asked about any problem with raising the door on the 13th Street side of the garage. Mr. Wright stated that is was an oversight and it would be raised to be more in line with the tops of the windows. Commissioner Pekar commented on the gate to the front lawn on the west side. Vice Chair Holder held up the plan view and there was a discussion on the doors to the garage and the gates from the patio. Vice Chair Holder stated that he did not have heartburn over the placement of the garage but did over the siding. Chair Kelley asked what siding he wanted. Vice Chair Holder echoed Commissioner Russell’s preference for true board and batten. Vice Chair Holder said that it should not look exactly like but different and that board and batten blends. Commissioner Pekar stated that board and batten was conventional on garages but the 13th Street side looked more like a house instead of an accessory building. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that there was a lot of texture on the house and adding board and batten would be adding yet another texture. She would rather see shiplap or horizontal siding. Vice Chair Holder stated that he was not married to one or the other. Mr. Wright stated that it was no problem to relook at the siding and that it was hard for the client to decide. He asked how many materials were too many materials on the site. Page 10 of 23 Commissioner Pekar asked what the probability of a two instead of a three car garage would be. Mr. Wright again referenced the Caradine garage. He said that cars parked outside would be more an eyesore than a three car garage. Commissioner Russell stated that providing some relief to the 13th Street side would be beneficial. The things that are the most important to this application are the siting, height and proportion (square and squat), the rhythm (large square openings), and overall mass of low horizontal façade. He thinks there is a way to resolve issues through design. He said that he does not think it is an appropriate addition. Mr. Wright stated that the client did not want a roof that was reminiscent of a low ranch style design. He continued that the height of the garage is appropriate to the house and the pitches are in keeping with the house. Commissioner Russell spoke of detailing of the building and looking more carefully at the stucco and cedar shake. In reference to the Caradine garage, Commissioner Jones added that each property is different and what works on that property may not work elsewhere. She added that sometimes less is more. Vice Chair Holder said that the siting has a lot to do with the use of the door to the house that faces 13th Street. There was a discussion on the setbacks along 13th Street. Commissioner Russell viewed a street view of the Caradine garage and he stated that it was not a fair comparison between the two. Mr. Wright spoke of the Caradine garage in reference to placement on the lot. Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that this seemed like an amendment to the application and suggested the opportunity to defer the application. Mr. Wright requested a deferral to the next agenda. Commissioner Jones commented on the property to the east using alley for parking. There was a discussion and it was stated that there is probably ten feet of right of way in addition to the three feet setback. Vice Chair Holder said that if it is to be deferred by the commission, the applicant should be told what the concerns are. Commissioner Russell has done that to some extent as well as Commissioner Pekar. Vice Chair Holder mentioned the siting as well as the siding. Ms. Weldon stated that they could defer for more information but they cannot require the applicant to change the design. If the applicant, after hearing the comments, wanted to change the design, it would be a deferral by the applicant. Mr. Minyard agreed that this would be a deferral by the applicant. There was a discussion of the types of deferrals and waving the bylaws. It was noted that if the applicant requested the deferral, the applicant would send out the notices. Vice Chair Holder made a motion to waive the bylaws for a deferral requiring a 5 day notice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 no (Russell) with a simple majority required. Page 11 of 23 Commissioner Pekar made a motion to defer to the January 2018 meeting and Vice Chair Holder seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). UPDATE: January 8, 2018 Capitol Zoning heard the item at their December 12-21-17. The siding was clarified as 4 foot wide panels of smooth Hardieboard with battens of approximately 1/2 x 1-1/2’ wide applied to the panels. The motion passed as submitted with 7 ayes and 2 absent. No additional sketches or graphics were submitted to Staff. COMMISSION ACTION: January 8, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item including the fact that the item was heard and approved at the CZDC meeting. The HDC will hear it as an amended COA. Changes were made to the application and drawings were received by staff after the packets went out. Changes were made to the project as follows: On the 13th street façade as well as the façade facing Scott Street, pairs of windows were changed to single windows to more reflect the original house. The people door on 13th Street was raised up to reflect the inside floor level. Staff did not get any additional comments since the last meeting. Hard copies of the changes were given to the Commissioners in the agenda meeting. Staff recommendation is approval. Reginald Wright, representing the applicant, spoke of the issues raised at the last meeting. He thanked the Commission for the deferral so that they could take a second look at the project. He spoke of the siting of the structure, the siding, and the windows. They did not revise the siting of the garage because it was necessary to get the larger vehicle into the garage on the north side. The other part of the garage is only 19’ deep, only compact cars can fit in those spaces. He stated that this would be true boards and batten on the siding. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked how tight it was placed on the alley. Mr. Wright stated that with the six foot separation from the house, it was forced to be that distance off the alley. Chair Holder stated it was 3’ off the property line on 13th Street. Mr. Wright stated with the setback and the right of way, it was about 13’ total to the curb off the street. Mr. Minyard stated it might be a foot or so more from the building and the curb. Chair Holder commented on the Hardie Board panels with 1x2” battens on top of the Hardie panel. Commissioner Pekar asked how far the between the battens. Mr. Wright stated they were every twelve inches. Vice Chair Russell stated that none of the concerns had been addressed and the project is still not appropriate for the site. Mr. Wright respectfully disagreed. Vice Chair Russell spoke of the setbacks for the front yard and side yard setbacks violate the average in the area. The proportion and rhythm has not changed significantly. The windows and doors have changed but are still inconsistent with the house. Options had been presented but nothing has been done. Based on the list of factors, he does not think it complies. Chair Holder spoke of the alley. There were questions on the Robertson Law Firm building and the setbacks of the outbuildings at the Robertson Law Firm. Commissioner Jones stated there is some angled parking off the alley for the Law Firm. Mr. Minyard referred them to a map on Page 12 of 23 page 2 of the staff report that shows the buildings in the area. He was trying to see if he felt they were connected visually. Commissioner Amber Jones asked if it was possible to have a garage that has garage doors facing 13th street. Mr. Minyard stated that the Commissioners review submittals presented to you. He continued that if you look at the plans, the garage would not be full depth to hold the vehicles that she wants to store. Discussion continued on if the plans could be changed. There was no public comment at this time. A motion was made by Vice Chair Russell to approve as submitted. Commissioner Kelley seconded and the vote was 5 ayes and 2 noes (Russell and Pekar). Page 13 of 23 DATE: January 8, 2018 APPLICANT: Delbra Caradine ADDRESS: 1101 Cumberland COA REQUEST: Exterior Renovations PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1101 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1, Block 46, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This commercial building was built in ca 1925 and extensively remodeled in 1988 after a fire destroyed the western half of the building. The 2006 survey form states: “Red Crown Water Com. Added dry cleaning and laundry to business and occupied building to 1987. 1988 Fashion Park Cleaners.” It is considered a "Non- Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for remodeling of the eastern portion of the building into a residence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On May 8, 2006, a COA was issued to Wali Caradine for signage that was never installed.. On June 17, 1988, a COA was approved and issued to Brooksher Banks to reconstruct the portion of the building that was destroyed by fire. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This proposal is to take the eastern portion of a commercial building and convert it into a residence. This will involve removing the dryvit finish that was applied in the 1988 to expose the original brick walls. The windows and doors on the north façade (11th Street façade) will be replaced. Starting on the left of the elevation, and overhead door and a man door will be converted into windows, the three existing windows will have new windows installed and the DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. Location of Project Page 14 of 23 remaining western overhead door will be converted into a man door with two sidelights, one on each side. The eastern façade on the alley will have the one overhead door converted and expanded into two garage doors, and the windows and existing man door will remain in the same place. The man door will be converted into a decorative gate. The south side will remain virtually unchanged with the exception of reglazing and refinishing the steel windows, repointing the brick where necessary and filing nonfunctional holes in the brick wall. In the City ordinance Section 23-120, it states the eleven factors on which a rehabilitation project is to be judged. They are Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Facade, Scale, and Massing. The Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Scale and Massing is not felt to be changed in the proposed rehabilitation. More of these factors are discussed below in the guidelines excerpts. Proposed Changes to the North (11th Street) elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Remove all dryvit from the project area, 3) Remove paint and excess mortar from brick, 4) Repoint brick where needed, 5) Remove blue awnings, 6) Remove downspouts, 7) Possibly move Entergy electric connection into building, 8) Remove eastern overhead door and replace with steel windows, 9) Remove steel man door and enlarge opening and replace with steel window, 10) Existing north elevation from 2006 survey Contributing and Non-contributing map Existing 11th Street (North) elevation Page 15 of 23 Remove three aluminum windows and replace with steel windows, 11) Remove western overhead door and replace with solid wood door and sidelights, 12) Install metal corrugated canopy above wood entry door, 13) Remove metal ramp leading to western overhead door, and 14) Install four wall mounted lights. Changes to the Alley (East) elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Retain brick, clean and repoint as necessary and fill in any nonfunctional openings, 3) Selectively demolish area surrounding overhead door to make room for two garage doors and two windows will be removed in the process, 4) Remove downspouts, 5) Remove existing canopy, 6) Remove existing man door, 7) Concrete pad at overhead door to be demolished and concrete ramp to new garage to be installed, 8) Install 3 new downspouts, 9) Install two garage doors, 10) Install new metal canopy above garage doors to replace existing, 11) Replace man door with ornate metal gate, 12) Install metal corrugated canopy above entry, 13) Existing steel windows to be replaced with new steel windows of same size and location and 14) Add new galvanized handrails and concrete ramp. Proposed 11th Street (North) elevation Existing Alley (East) elevation Proposed Alley (East) elevation Page 16 of 23 Changes to the South elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Refinish and reglaze existing steel windows, 3) Repointing the brick where necessary and filing nonfunctional holes in the brick wall, 4) Remove any extra mortar where neighboring building was attached. On page 10 of the Guidelines, it states “Removing inappropriate, non- historic alterations can help reveal the historic character of buildings. Removing the dryvit exterior that was added in 1988 can accomplish this goal for the eastern part of the building. The western part of the building was reconstructed in 1988 and removing the dryvit from that part of the building may not be possible. The Ordinance requires the Commission to review applications based on the eleven design factors. Seven of these factors are not believed to be affected by this application. However, Entrance areas, Wall areas, Detailing and Façade will be changed with this proposal. These design factors are discussed in the following paragraphs; more specifically, the door styles choses in reference to the Entrance areas, Wall areas in reference to the size and location of openings that will be modified, Detailing in reference to the lighting and awnings, and Façade in reference to the sum of the changes to the 11th Street side of the building. On the 11th Street side, the overhead door is proposed to be replaced with a man door with sidelights and a transom. On page 23 of the Guidelines, the text refers to the storefront door and not replacing that door with “decorative doors or any door based upon a different historical period or style.” This is not the main door into the building, but will be a prominent feature. The proposed door with its curved mid-rail could be called having a French influence. It is certainly not an early 20th century commercial building auxiliary door. While this will not function as the main entry to the house, it will have the appearance to be the main entry for public. Staff believes that this door is too decorative and should be more in keeping with side doors of the period. A door with one-half or two-thirds glass on the top without the transom would be more fitting. The sidelights should also be simplified. Also on the 11th Street side, all of the doors and windows are being changed in different ways. The top of the existing doors and windows are at different heights on the wall. Changing the height of these in an effort to match or coordinate erases the history of the original openings. Staff does not support raising the header of the man door that is being converted to windows. Existing south elevation Proposed door on 11th Street Page 17 of 23 Staff does support the installation of period steel windows that match the windows on the south side of the building. On the 11th Street side as well as the Alley elevation, three corrugated metal awnings are proposed to be installed. One will be at the western overhead door/new entry door and two will be on the alley side, one over the garage doors and one over the entry area. There is currently a metal awning over the alley side overhead door. Details on how this canopy will be constructed are not included in the submittals. On the Alley (East) side, the overhead door will be removed as well as part of the wall to accommodate two new garage doors. As stated above, “decorative doors or any door based upon a different historical period or style” are not recommended. Staff does not support the design of the garage door windows. Simpler rectangular windows in the top of the garage doors would be more appropriate if windows are desired in the garage doors. The location of the new air conditioning units on the rooftop will be the least visible from the street. The building is built to the property lines on the north and south sides. On the site design, the following changes are proposed: Alley (East) side, 1) Concrete pad at overhead door to be demolished and concrete ramp to new garage to be installed, 2) Add new galvanized handrails and concrete ramp, on 11th Street, 3) the metal ramp that leads to the western overhead door will be removed and replaced with concrete steps. According to the survey, there is approximately six feet in which to build this ramp from the garage towards the alley. Part of the alley right of way may not be currently paved and it will also need to be paved. Also, the survey shows approximately shows 3.6’ in width to build this ramp and handrails alongside the building towards 11th Street. The ramp will slope down towards 11th street. On the 11th Street side on the westernmost overhead door, there is a metal ramp that is to be removed with be replaced with concrete steps. If handrails are to be installed, details will need to be provided. A Franchise permit may be required for this improvement. The curb and dropoff/sidewalk will remain as is. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Submittal of final door/entry unit and final garage door design to Staff prior to construction. If doors are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 3. Size and locations of original openings on 11th street elevation are not to be changed. 4. Approval of franchise permit for awnings and other improvements in the right of ways. Proposed garage doors on the alley Page 18 of 23 COMMISSION ACTION: January 8, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked about requiring that the brick not be sandblasted to remove the paint or excess mortar. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant would need to respond to that question. Kwendeche, the architect representing the owner, stated that he was in agreement with the comments in the Staff report. He clarified that he was not changing the opening sizes or locations on the 11th street side. The intent is to come back with more different specific doors. He mentioned an awning on the east side of the building and will try to mimic what is there now with the additional awning on the north side. There is no issue with Staff comments and will follow up at appropriate time. Raymond Weber, 1112 Rock Street, said that there was trouble with people blocking the alley. This is a dead end alley with only one way out to the north. He worried about the construction traffic blocking the alley. Paul Dorman, 1104 Rock, commented that the width of the sidewalk/ramp to the street might infringe on the alley right of way. Kwendeche said that it was a platted 20’ alley and that not all of it was paved. There is adequate width to get the sidewalk to 11th street in without getting into the alley. He also stated that the construction traffic would not block the alley. It will be in the conditions of the contractors not to block the alley. Chair Holder asked who in the city was responsible for that. Mr. Minyard stated to start with the permit desk and the inspectors. The police could also be called if necessary. Kwendeche stated that removing the excess mortar and paint of the brick would be done mechanically, no chemicals or sandblasting. Mr. Minyard explained different options on resolving issues brought up in the staff report. The commission could approve the item tonight and leave the decision of doors, opening sizes and canopy up to staff to approve. This requires a verbal description of the approved door or other items. Or, the Commission could ask for a deferral. Kwendeche will provide details back to staff within a reasonable time. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff is not comfortable with leaving the door selection up to Staff if the Commission has not verbally decided on a door style and materials. Vice Chair Russell suggested that the applicant choose the door style and bring back to Staff. Debra Weldon stated that Kwendeche would need to be willing to defer the application. It was noted that the City will send out the notices. The commission wants detail on the lighting, doors and awnings. Kwendeche stated that he was okay with the deferral. The design details will need to be into Staff’s hands by January 22nd. Kwendeche stated he would match the steel windows. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer for additional information concerning windows, lights, doors and awnings till the February 12, 2018 hearing. Commissioner Rob Hodge seconded and the motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. Page 19 of 23 DATE: January 8, 2018 APPLICANT: Stephen McAteer, Parks and Recreation ADDRESS: 503 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Storm Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 East Ninth Street. The property’s legal description is “That part of the northwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 11 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & north of E 13th Street and that part of the southwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 2 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & south of E 9th ST located in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arsenal building was built in the 1840’s and is a national landmark, the highest recognition of a historic building. The structure is a contributing structure in the district. The proposal is to add exterior Storm Windows. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On June 13, 2017, a COC was approved and issued to MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History for porch renovations. On August 19, 2104, a COC was approved and issued to MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History for a bike rack not visible from the street. On May 7, 2014, a COC was approved and issued to MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History for a Camden Expedition Commemorative Marker not visible from the street. On September 10, 2014, a COA was approved and issued to Parks and Recreation for fencing around playground. On April 5, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to Parks and Recreation for a signage and the Korean War Veterans Memorial. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 20 of 23 On April 4, 2013 a COC was issues to the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History for installation of a flagpole. Existing North elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 14 of the Guidelines, it states: Screen and Storm Windows: Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do not require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Exterior screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in a color to match the window sash paint color 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 proposal is to install “Historically Approved, Allied One Lite exterior storm windows”. They are to be Allied One Lite, Type A and Type C design, as manufactured by Allied Window of Cincinnati, OH and shall be in Standard White color. All glass will be clear annealed with transoms, sidelights and other locations as required by building codes to be tempered glass. These storm windows will be installed on all windows except for the two windows in the basement which are covered by a Certificate of Compliance COC for maintenance items. The doors leading to the porches will have storm windows installed on the glass portions of the door and the sidelights will have separate storms. Allied storm window at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC Page 21 of 23 The Allied windows proposed here are the least obtrusive storm windows available. From the specifications, they appear to be 3/8” thick and one inch wide. The Old State House Museum, also a National Historic Landmark building has the Allied storm windows in stalled on it. The City will be applying for a HPRG grant from AHPP to assist in some of the cost of these windows. Currently, the Museum has a project underway to replace the heat and air systems and to repair the porches, all of which were covered in a Certificate of Compliance COC in 2017. As a part of the renovations to the Museum, the exterior porches and windows will be painted. This would be a perfect time to protect the newly painted and glazed windows. In the City ordinance Section 23-120, it states the eleven factors on which a rehabilitation project is to be judged. They are Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Facade, Scale, and Massing. When reviewing the definitions in the ordinance, it does not appear that the storm windows will affect any of these factors. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were three letters of support for the storm windows: AHPP (which holds a conservation easement on the building) Quapaw Quarter Association, and Preserve Arkansas, the local and state-wide preservation advocates, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 4. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: January 8, 2018 Lauren Frederick recused herself on this item and left the meeting at 6:00 pm. Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item. Stephan McAteer, Director of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History since 2001, values the stewardship and occupancy of that building. They are currently working on a 1.5 million dollar renovation project. The City determined with the new HVAC being installed, it would be an excellent time to install storm windows to provide energy efficiency and protect new paint job and glazing on widows. He stated they received state and federal levels of approval for the installation of the storm windows in addition to a letter of support from the QQA. Richard Butler, 417 E 10th street, spoke in support to of the project. It is one of the oldest and most prominent historic building in the district. Commissioner Dale Pekar stated it was a very important landmark structure. He has looked at other structures in the city and buildings look more historic without the storm windows added. On the three covered porches, the windows are already protected from the elements. He thought about half of the windows were under porches and considered recommending storms on part but not all of the windows. He can readily tell the difference and is opposed to storm windows. Vice Chair Russell asked the benefits of interior storm windows instead of exterior. Mr. McAteer stated that the exterior ones would protect the wood windows that will have been recently re - glazed and painted. Vice Chair Russell stated that they would need to be repainted eventually even with exterior storms installed. He also stated that the interior and exterior storm windows Page 22 of 23 would provide that same energy efficiency. Mr. McAteer responded that the Old State House has the same storm windows and they are not visible from the street. You have to look closely to see that the storm windows are there. Chair Ted Holder said that he has this model of storm windows on his house. The Allied Company is known as the “historic storm window”. They are 3/8 inch thick, very flat and fit extremely well. They will also match your paint color. Mr. McAteer noted that he has been in communication with the National Park Service and they are in support of these windows. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that the National Park Service regularly approves storm windows and many with lesser quality than these windows. She said she appreciated that Stephan McAteer is jumping through extra hoops. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked how easy it was to get rid of the windows in the future. Mr. McAteer said it was completely reversible with minimal damage to the wood. Vice Chair Russell asked if they were to have a muntin. Mr. McAteer said that some would. They would be at the meeting rail of the existing double hung windows. The doors that lead to the porches would not have muntins as well as no muntin on the sidelights. Vice Chair Russell asked if they would look better with no muntins anywhere. Chair Holder said that you would not notice the meeting rail on the storm since it matches the original window. Chair Holder asked if there were to be screens. Mr. McAteer stated no. Commissioner Dick Kelley made a motion to approve as submitted with Commissioner Jones seconding. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 2 noes (Russell and Pekar) and 1 absent (Frederick). Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier. There are some that do not have a date, we are still working on them. Pre-application meeting There will be a work session on January 16th at 3:00 at the Planning Department Conference room. Mr. Minyard will notify the press. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:17 p.m. Attest: Date Page 23 of 23