Loading...
HDC_07 01 1999City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 1 JULY 1999 MEETING MINUTES Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice-Chair Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Margi Gant Guests: Missy Mcswain Randall Frazier Jay Core Richard Butler The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken; as there was a quorum, the minutes were approved as submitted. The agenda order was rearranged as the representatives for the public hearing were not present. Under old business, the topic of non-compliance of approved Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) was discussed, specifically for properties at 902 Cumberland and 514 East 9th streets. Staff summarized recent actions, such as the letters to the two property owners, the contact with the owner and agent of the properties, the discussion of procedures and description of work not in compliance with what was approved. Letters were mailed to the properties in May and June, asking for an explanation of their non-compliance; both were asked to appear before the LRHDC to discuss the issue. A similar letter was sent to the Quapaw Quarter Association, as they did not obtain the necessary approvals prior to receiving a building permit for repairs to the Villa Marre. The owner of 514 East 9th and the agent for 902 Cumberland were asked to either write a letter explaining their actions (i.e., why they did not follow the COA and installed materials contrary to that approved) or appear at the June meeting. The agent for Graves Lithe, 902 Cumberland, Raymon Hill, responded by writing two letters in April and May explaining why the approved glass blocks in the entry ( on the north elevation) were not installed. This was the sole entry being enclosed, and it was scheduled to have glass blocks; the remainder windows were the insulated bronze windows. In the architectural survey of the MacArthur Park Historic District, 902 Cumberland is a non-contributing structure. Hill presented a synopsis of the selection process and explained the rationale of installing the bronze windows in lieu of the glass blocks. Instead of glass blocks for the north entry, they thought the bronze windows looked better, would be more uniform and consistent; also, the glass blocks would take longer to order. Staff talked with Hill on more than one occasion and had several phone conversations regarding the installment of the windows. Hill made it clear, on Little Rock Historic District Commission 1 July 1999 Minutes, Page 2 more than one occasion, that the mistake was an honest one, of not knowing that the LRHDC should be notified of changes. He stated that he did not attend the June meeting as he had business outside the state. Computer images of the structure were presented: one photo image of each elevation depicting it prior to their purchase and rehab, other photos depicting what was proposed and presented last year (i.e., glass blocks with bronze windows) and photos of the end product without the glass blocks. There was conversation about the project and its subsequent changes --the rationale of using glass blocks, the installation of the bronze windows, the spacing of windows, costs differences, etc. After discussion of the changes, options available, the structure's status, etc., a motion was made to accept the alterations as presented. A vote was taken and it was approved (4 to 1, with Gardner against). (NOTE: prior to the 5:00 p.m. public hearing, there was an on-site meeting of the LRHDC and staff at 514 East 9th to discuss several issues of the project's rehabilitation.) Staff summarized the subject property, the contact and conversations with the property owner; there were two letters to the owner, two phone calls and one conversation. While having architectural drawings prepared by John Jarrard, the end product is not as drawn and does not comply with the design, scale, materials, etc. Gordon summarized the on-site meeting and listed those items not complying with the drawings --the front porch spindles; balustrade; skirt; fascia; and gutters. Kennedy's lawyer, Randy Frazier, addressed the five items specifically of the rehabilitation work not in compliance with the approved COA. The spindles were designed based on the original and existing on the second level porch; they are different in proportion with the architect's drawings. The gutters, while not part of the COA request, were removed as part of the remodeling; they may be approved administratively. Also, in order to put the gutters in place requires trespassing on the adjacent property to the west. The fascia was designed from the original; Kennedy took half of the fascia and reproduced it; they do match the drawings. The dentils are as drawn and are the original. The porch skirt is original and, as such, has the same width and profile. From the evidence shown, Kennedy is in violation of the spindles only; while they do deviate from the drawings, they are representative of the original. He stated that his client is asking for a variance of the spindles so that those in place on the first level may remain. There was conversation about the purpose of architectural drawings, and Greer detailed the reasoning for drawings and how they are utilized in making a decision. Drawings provide a consistent perspective and are necessary in order to maintain a structure's architectural detailing. There was discussion regarding drawings, the degree of rehab work, purpose of design, importance of facade work and preserving a structure's architectural detailing and elements. Work that is not compatible, doesn't befit a historic structure and is not appropriate, effects neighboring structures and the historic district; it creates a snowball effect. There was conversation about the enforcement capability of LRHDC to ensure that the district's architectural integrity remains intact. Marratt stated that by its very nature, rehab work is complicated due to several factors as neglect, design issues, location, etc. The LRHDC is limited in its capabilities and responsibilities Little Rock Historic District Commission 1 July 1999 Minutes, Page 3 regarding the detailing and complexity of rehab work and cannot deal with the day-to-day issues and decisions. What should be considered is how to avoid similar situations in the future but ensure that work is in compliance with the approved COA. The LRHDC needs to be proactive and not wait until the work is 95% completed before addressing issues that may have done incorrectly. This project is too far along to deal with the owner in a timely fashion. While efforts were made to deal with the problems early on, as per the meeting in March to discuss fascia and the May letter, there needs to be a project check point to confirm that what was approved is being performed. Gordon addressed the five issues at hand. The first item was the structure's gutters; it was decided that the gutters were a separate COA request as no one knows whether or not they were boxed or external. From the on-site visit, the balustrade and skirt may be determined to be work in progress; however, the architectural drawings should be followed. Greer stated that the fascia is similar to drawings and can be modified; and trim may be added to the front porch's skirt to be more accurate. Both Marratt and Greer agreed that the only way that the balustrade ( consisting of spindles, cap rail, plinth rail, posts) can be corrected is to tear down what's been erected and reconstruct it entirely as drawn. The existing balustrade, that which is in place, is not as drawn: the drawings call for a spindle that is¾" x ¾" and what's present is about a 2½" spindle; this is more narrow and doesn't match the proportions of the front facade. The upper balcony balustrade will be in the second or third phase of work; and its floor decking is what existed prior to work. This is a contributing structure in the historic district and is prominently sited across from the Arkansas Arts Center. There is a facade easement on the structure with the state historic preservation program, who is in the process of updating their easement files. Adjacent property owner, Jay Core, was present and addressed his concerns about 514 E. 9th. Due to the close proximity of the two structures, the removal of gutters from the subject property is creating drainage problems for his. Also, the owner would have been a better neighbor if an agreement with the involved owners could have been reached to benefit both tenants and owners. Gordon made a motion to give Kennedy six months in order to bring the balustrade on first floor to COA specifications and as per the architectural drawings. The vote passed with four in favor and one (Marratt) abstaining. Little Rock Historic District Commission I July 1999 Minutes, Page 4 The sole Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was: Applicant: Tim Heiple and Fred Gray, agents Address: 916 - 924 Commerce Street Request: Rehabilitation of structure into apartments Due to her ownership of a condo, Gardner recused herself from the meeting. Prior to the presentation, Black stated that the agents do not represent the current owners and, because of that, the LRHDC cannot vote on this application. They can hear the presentation of the COA application and its request as a concession; once there are new owners, then a vote may be taken; it was agreed to follow the proposed procedure. Tim Heiple, as architect, presented the proposed plan. He stated that they were scheduled to close on the property prior to the meeting, but the closing was delayed; however, there is a signed contract on the property. The project involves increasing the structure's units to 27 apartments; the roof will be reconstructed with a greater pitch, which will increase the eave overhang. Balconies will be added to the exterior on all elevations. The 1947 structure will be rehabilitated entirely; there was brief discussion about the interior changes and the exterior features were detailed for the group. Issues of on-site parking, landscaping plans and fencing (security gates in rear) were discussed. Also, it was stated that the distributed drawings are not final and changes must be made. Greer summarized the project and stated that when the construction documents are submitted and distributed to the LRHDC members, a phone vote could be taken of the plans. The expiration of two commissioners' terms, that of Greer's as architect and of Marratt' s as property owner, was discussed. Greer submitted a letter asking for reappointment, but Marratt did not; also, as Gardner recently bought a new house outside of the historic district after last summer's fire at the Parkview condos, her position as resident and property owner is available. The advertisement stated that there were two positions available on the LRHDC: that of resident and that of resident and property owner. As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 6:30 p.m.