Loading...
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.