HDC_03 14 1985MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MARCH 14, 1985
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHAIRMAN
MR. BILL KENNEDY, III
MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR.
MEMBERS ABSENT: MR. GEORGE WORTHEN
MS. BETH FOTI
STAFF PRESENT: W. MIKE DOOLEY
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr.
Aaft John Jarrard, at 4:05 P.M. and finding a quorum to exist,
the Commission moved to accept the Minutes of the previous
meeting as recorded.
Staff reported that the required notification had been
properly mailed to owners of property within the designated
area of influence and that proof of said notification had
been received.
Item No. 1 was announced and described as:
OWNER: The Renaissance Corporation
ADDRESS: 1306 Cumberland
REQUEST: New Construction of a four-unit condominium
structure on vacant land.
Mr. Ralph Megna, Vice-President of The Renaissance
Corporation, addressed the Commission as owner of subject
property as well as representative of the adjacent
architectural firm.
Mr. Megna stated that the four (4) individual units
would have approximately 1,200 square feet in size and that
the entire structure would be set back from the alley
nineteen (19) feet. He noted that the Cumberland Street
00% setback would be no closer to the street than the adjacent
property to the South. To allow the nineteen foot rear
yard, Mr. Megna stated that the Capitol Zoning District
Commission would have to approve a variance from the
required twenty -five (25) foot setback. He stated that the
structure would be two and one-half stories tall with a
garage, kitchen and dining areas on the ground level, main
living room, bedroom and bath on the second floor and a half
story loft space on the top.
Mr. Megna presented several graphics from which he
explained that the site was currently vacant and that the
proposal would fill a void on the street with a structure
that was compatible with the original height, scale and
massing as the original structures. He stated that the roof
slopes were designed to be similar to other roof pitches and
gables in the neighborhood. He noted that they would
utilize two sizes of wood siding on the exterior of the
structure with some sort of metal panel door for the garage.
He stated that many more windows were provided on this
project than on most newly constructed buildings in order to
emulate nearby older structures.
Mr. Megna explained that some changes have been made in
the design of the structure and grounds as a result of
discussions from neighboring property owners. These
+f included a balcony on the east facade of the structure to
give the appearance of an entrance, moving the fence to the
sidewalk and the construction of new sidewalks. He noted
that they were requesting a curb cut on Cumberland at the
request of one property owner, and to allow future owners a
way out of the development other than turning around and
coming back out the alley.
Mr. Kennedy asked if he could have a more detailed
description of the materials.
Mr. Megna stated that the ground floor would be wooden
clapboard and the upper floors would be the same material or
a shiplap which is a newer vinyl version that would be
easier to maintain but would still appear to be wood from
ground level.
Mr. Strauss asked if the parking shown on the alley
would be a part of this project or remain to be used by the
office to the north.
Mr. Megna stated that those spaces are in excess of
those required for the office, and that they were in
addition to the required amount of parking for the four (4)
unit structure. He perceived that the parking could be
shared by the offices during the day and residents or guests
in the evening, thereby, reducing the total number of autos
parking on the street.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the fence would only be along
Cumberland or if it would extend along the south property
line.
Mr. Megna said that the only fence currently in the
plan was the one along Cumberland although the property
owners to the south had requested a fence be considered and
that he was not adverse to providing one as requested.
Mr. Jarrard asked if there was a City requirement
regarding the placement and height of fences.
Staff reported that City regulations require a screen
separating commercial zoning or parking from any
residentially used parcel of property. It was explained
that this location was within the jurisdiction of the State
Capitol Zoning Commission and that they had the
responsibility to address screening and setback issues.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there was any lighting on the site
or if there was an AP &L nightlight nearby.
Mr. Megna said a nightlight existed at the end of the
alley and that the property was sufficiently lit.
Mr. Jarrard asked if there was anyone who wished to
speak against the application.
Ms. Elana Hangie who represented herself and her
husband who own the property to the south at 1314 Cumberland
had several items which she discussed previously with the
developer. She stated that she was eased somewhat by his
responses although she requested to list her concerns and
some possible solutions as follows:
1. Excessive building height and obstructed views.
Solution: Remove 1/2 story from the structure.
2. Orientation of the buildings to the street.
Solution: Turn the units to face Cumberland.
3. Density too high.
Solution: Reduce density from four (4) to two (2)
or three (3) units.
4. Parking was acceptable and she agreed it could
reduce curb parking on the street but was con-
cerned about guest parking.
Solution: Reduce density to reduce parking need.
5. Damage during construction.
Solution: Guarantee by developer to repair and
any damage.
6. Fencing the south property line to provide a
screening buffer.
Solution: Construct a 6 ft. wood fence along the
entire south property line.
Ms. Hangie asked if the colors on the plan reflected
the actual proposed colors to be used on the structure.
Mr. Megna stated that they were not the actual colors
to be used and that the final color scheme would compliment
other colors in the area.
There being no other speakers in opposition to the
request, Mr. Megna discussed the items in question with the
following remarks:
1. Height: He stated that the height of the proposed
building was 10 ft. shorter than the highest
building on the block and the proposed height was
in keeping with the balance of the block and
within historic preservation guidelines.
2. Orientation: Orientation is on east and north of
building so views on Cumberland, which is one-way
south, show primarily the front of the structure.He
stated that elevations show more windows and detail than
other structures in the area.
3. Density: It is allowable to place seven (7)
units on the lot and they have only proposed
four (4).
4. Parking: Capitol Zoning requirements state that
one (1) space be required for each unit and they
are providing twice as many as the ordinance calls
for.
5. Damages: The contractor is Thomas Harding who is
bonded and insured and any damage will be fixed
quickly and at no cost to the property owner.
6. Fencing: The developers are willing to construct
a fence along the south property line to a height
that is permitted by law.
Mr. Jarrard explained to all present that this
application was unusual in that it was located within the
jurisdiction of both the local Historic District and the
State Capitol Zoning District and this was the first
application to be considered within that three (3) block
overlap. Therefore, the Historic District Commission was in
this case acting only as an advisory body to Capitol Zoning
and that the results of this meeting were to be in the form
,WMA, of a recommendation to Capitol Zoning Commission.
Mr. Strauss suggested that if the windows on the south
side were removed from the second floor and if skylights
were placed in the roof, necessary light would be provided,
the occupants could use the wall space and the neighbors
would not have people looking down into their house.
Mr. Megna stated that they were flexible on that design
issue and would study it further.
Mr. Jarrard asked if there were any recommendations to
approve the application.
Mr. Bill Hall, representing the Arkansas Historic
Presentation Program, stated that their feeling was that the
proposal conformed to other properties regarding use of
materials and proportions and, therefore, recommended
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ms. Cheryl Nichols, Executive Director of the Quapaw
Quarter Association, stated that the Association had
forwarded a letter recommending approval of the application
and they stand by that recommendation although they also had
many of the same concerns as Ms. Hangie, and that she
realized that much of the design was based on cost and
�` trying to keep the price of the units in a reasonable range.
She noted that the size, scale, proportion and materials of
the proposal were similar to other buildings in the
neighborhood and that, although the design of the proposal
was not what she had hoped from the developer, she saw no
reason to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Kennedy stated to Ms. Hangie that many of the
concerns which she stated were not a consideration of this
Commission, but rather Capitol Zoning, and that he was
sympathetic to her presentation as he was also a property
owner in the area. He commended the Hangies for the work
accomplished on her property and agreed that if any damage
occurs, the developer or his contractor should pay for the
damages.
Mr. Kennedy also asked Mr. Megna to review the lighting
situation on the alley and try to provide adequate light for
residents and guests.
Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the application on the
condition that the fence be placed along the south property
line.
Mr. Megna stated that the developer was willing to
construct the fence but only to the rear setback line. If
the Capitol Zoning Commission agrees to the requested rear
yard variance that distance would be 19 ft. from the
property line.
Mr. Strauss seconded the motion with the inclusion of
the fence.
The Historic District Commission voted to approve the
application with the inclusion of a fence on the south
property line by a vote of 3 for, 0 against, and 2 absent.
There being no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:50 P.M.