Loading...
HDC_07 02 1998City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 2 JULY 1998 MEETING MINUTES Commissioners Present: Judy Gardner Howard H. Gordon John Greer Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Staff Present: V.Anne Guthrie Tim Polk Tony Black Guests: Richard Butler Jason Rinehart The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order by staff. Roll call was taken. Nominations were made to elect John Greer as Chair and Howard Gordon as Vice-Chair; both votes were unanimous. Chair Greer presided over the meeting. As all commissioners were present, the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application, deferred from June, was: Applicant: Marsha Taul Address: 1305 Cumberland Request: Retain existing vinyl siding on the north elevation Greer asked that the Staff Report be entered into the record. Guthrie read the report containing the background, analysis and neighborhood impact of applicant's request. Rusty Sparks, Taul's counsel, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He presented a summary of his client's application and the 1997 decision to allow artificial siding only on the east elevation and to remove the existing artificial siding on the north. He stated that his client is reapplying for consideration of the removal of the vinyl siding, i.e., to retain the existing siding on the north elevation, based on five reasons: (1) its removal would create a substantial hardship for the applicant; (2) its removal would damage the wood underneath; (3) there is little architectural integrity to the north elevation; (4) in keeping the vinyl siding, there is minimal degradation to the overall architectural character of the district; and (5) forcing the removal of vinyl siding appears to be selective enforcement and discriminatory. Sparks stated that the applicant regretted not obtaining a building permit and a COA, as it was her intent to rehab the structure and make it look nice. He stated that the removal of vinyl siding does not benefit the city or historic district and should be Little Rock Historic District Commission 2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 2 considered based on weighing and balancing of applicant's needs with the overall good of the district. He then detailed each reason to retain the existing vinyl siding. Also, he stated that the structure's architectural integrity was compromised dramatically when the window on the second level was installed by the previous owner. A letter from Joseph Brown was entered as an exhibit regarding potential damage to the wood siding if the vinyl were removed. Numerous houses in the historic district have siding and photographs of those with artificial siding were presented as exhibits. Sparks stated that in his opinion this is selective enforcement, as the LRHDC has not forced the removal of artificial siding on these structures. Several exhibits were presented to the LRHDC for their review: photos of various houses in the district, detailing on the subject structure and letters of support. The counsel introduced Andy Hicks, architect. He lived on Broadway for several years and was present to testify to the advantages of vinyl siding. Commissioner Marratt gave an overview of rehabilitation and raised the issue of consequences for those who ignore city and district process (i.e, not getting building permit or a COA). Gordon stated that it is important to get information about the district, its regulations and guidelines to property owners, home buyers and the public. Discussion focused on historic district regulations, and specifically, the application of artificial siding. Black read into the record past COA requests for siding. He stated that structures with artificial siding prior to the district's creation are allowed. Two witnesses, both neighbors, were present in support of the request. They spoke of siding for insulation purposes, and how siding has helped the appearance of the structure's exterior. There was no opposition to the request. There were questions regarding the applicant's claim of economic hardship in the removal of the siding; whether she had anticipated the costs to repair the rental property (she owns two other rental properties) and whether the rehab costs were more than anticipated. Commissioner Gardner asked whether there were estimates for repairing the wooden siding if the artificial siding is removed --there were no estimates. Greer discussed issues from the 1997 application and the architectural ramifications of artificial siding on the structure as the: north elevation is visible from the street; artificial siding on northwest cornerboard is vinyl, has irregular junction and does not match; artificial is a shiplap design and doesn't match the wooden clapboard; the purpose of the skirtboard with dripcap is removed; soffit trim, usually visible from street, is removed completely; and the removal of window trim. He discussed concerns of artificial siding: vinyl siding attracts condensation between wood and artificial; as it acts as sealer, it causes wood to rot and increases mold and mildew; if siding is not properly installed it harms the structure's infrastructure; and fading of artificial siding colors. Little Rock Historic District Commission 2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 3 Greer cited the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and the district's design guidelines for modifications in terms of the compatibility of proportion, rhythm and facade and accompanying architectural details. He asked that the letter from Sarah Brown, Executive Director of Quapaw Quarter Association (QQA), be entered into the record, as they receive an agenda packet and provide comments on application requests; QQA supported the retention of vinyl siding on the north. The project's staff recommendation was read into the record, which was to approve the request to retain siding on the north elevation with conditions. Other discussion focused on the removal of the apron and dripboard and the time period in which to accomplish the conditions. Gordon made a motion that the existing vinyl siding on the north elevation of the building remain with the condition that the soffit and dripboard be added and that the wraparound on the northwest cornerboard be removed to more closely match the wooden siding. The conditions must be in place within six months (by 2 January 1999). The motion was seconded; the vote unanimously approved the request with the conditions and time period. The second Certificate of Appropriateness (GOA) application was: Applicant: Michael Preble Address: 1006 Rock Request: Demolition of structure Before the application was presented, Guthrie (being part owner with the applicant) left the room, as did Marratt who recused himself from the application's consideration. Polk read into the record the staff recommendation. For clarity, Black confirmed that there must be an unanimous approval by the three remaining commissioners (chair not voting) for the application request to be approved. Preble presented a summary of his request. He detailed the reason for Marratt's letter being in the LRHDC package, for Inspector Rick Purifoy's appearance regarding the structure' safety and the engineer's analysis. He stated that the structure is not a good example of Colonial Revival architecture, as compared to presented photographs of better architectural examples in the district. The structure's dilapidated condition started years ago and has been vacant since 1980; the applicant assumes no responsibility for its present condition but regrets that the previous owners let this occur. There were questions as to when he acquired the property (1997), whether efforts were made to sell or rehabilitate the structure (yes) and whether there were objections to the applicant's request (none). Purifoy stated that he inspected the building and summarized its structural condition; it was upgraded from Category 3 to 2 (not economically feasible to rehab) on the city's "Listing of Unsafe and Vacant Structures." Little Rock Historic District Commission 2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 4 There was discussion regarding the condition of the structure, lot size and letters of support. Gordon made a motion to approve the application as submitted; the vote was unanimous approval. (NOTE: while not read into the record, it should be entered that the QQA supported the demolition due to the structure's condition) The New and Old Business agenda items were addressed. Gardner asked that technical testimony be limited in time; Black commented on the legality of testimony and made recommendations when future discussions become lengthy. Also, at the next meeting there will be a report regarding 1304 Cumberland and its compliance with the regulations of both the LRHDC and Capitol Zoning Commission. Referencing Taul's application and accompanying photos of structures with illegally installed artificial siding, Gordon asked to docket 1417 Cumberland Street, and its appearance of siding on the rear, for the next meeting. Guthrie and Purifoy will confirm whether the structure has artificial siding. The enforcement capability for the individual structures is dependent upon whether or not siding was in place prior to the district's creation, if it received LRHDC approval or was installed without approval. As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 7:00 p.m.