Loading...
HDC_10 05 2000City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 5 OCTOBER 2000 MINUTES LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon Jean Ann Phillips Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller Staff Present: V.Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Debra Weldon The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken; there was a quorum and minutes from the past meetings (3 August, 16 August and 7 September) were approved separately and each passed unanimously. The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) was: Applicant: Kramer Artloft Ltd. Address: 701 Sherman Request: Installation of a public art sculpture Todd Rice, as owner and developer, gave an overview of the sculpture garden, which is situated on Kramer's northwest corner. The garden project was before the LRHDC as after-the fact. Rice apologized to the LRHDC, stating that the construction project was interpreted as a landscape issue and not requiring LRHDC approval. He stated that it was a millennium project funded by an Arkansas Arts Council grant. Charlotte Allison, as project manager of the sculpture garden, was prepared to give a presentation to the LRHDC at the last meeting. Allison oversaw the project from its inception of the grant process to the permits and was under the impression that all necessary approvals were obtained. Rice detailed the sculpture project and future exterior projects for Kramer grounds. Graphics illustrated the location of the existing landscape project, and future projects were outlined in the general area of the northwest corner and along the western side; there are no plans to expand the arch or construct a wall. Greer expanded on the role of the LRHDC in terms of its review of public art, landscape projects, etc. in the historic district. Weldon read the city ordinance of the review responsibilities of the LRHDC and landscape projects; plantings do no require a COA but exterior landscape structures or furniture do. There were no objections to the landscape project; it was emphasized that future improvement plans to the public spaces must come before the LRHDC for review. Little Rock Historic District Commission 5 October 2000 Minutes, Page 2 The next COA for consideration was: Applicant: Chris Pratt Address: 314 East 14th Request: COA amendment requesting installation of vinyl windows Staff reviewed the additional information that was requested of and submitted by the owner as part of his plea of economic hardship; it was requested to install vinyl windows on the structure instead of the approved wooden ones with storm windows. A review of the information detailed rehab costs, work not completed, percentage of work completed and estimated rehab costs; the later was put together by HUD. Greer summarized the applicant's amended request and reiterated the seven items under the window design guidelines to consider for rehabilitation, such as replacement should be in-kind to match original materials and design. The applicant's request, to install vinyl windows, is against the guidelines. In order to approve materials that are contrary to the guidelines, the evidence must be convincing. Also, the applicant asked that economic, or financial, hardship be applied in order to install the vinyl windows; however, based on information submitted by the applicant, it was not sufficient to determine an economic or financial hardship. The opinion of legal counsel was requested, if there was additional advice about what is required of the applicant with the request for economic or financial hardship. Black stated that the LRHDC was clear and concise as to the information requested of the applicant; his review of the newly submitted information, which was received that afternoon (as opposed to earlier as requested in order to review the information and make a determination) indicates that the estimates and the amount of work yet to be done are not covered by the amount in escrow. Also, the requested information was not supplied by the applicant. While there are no established factors to determine a hardship, the presented information was deficient in the degree of details lacking and needed in order to determine economic or financial hardship. The applicant addressed the LRHDC, explaining the financing and rehabilitation process, associated expenses, etc. On October 29, he will forfeit on the FHA mortgage for the house as he cannot put in wooden windows due to their expense. There was discussion about exceptions to the design guidelines, that exceptions possibly could be made for materials rather than design. However, what is viewed from the street (per the district's design guidelines) is important. The incompatibility ( or not being in-kind) of the material of an architectural feature is not as important or as distinguishable as the design, when viewed from the street. This decision effects future owners of the structure as well as in the historic district and establishes a precedence for future use of vinyl windows. A discussion ensued about rehab work and its associated cost overruns. It was noted that the project has exceeded already the estimated costs and is not completed. The applicant was asked if he could, for example, live with plywood instead of finished floors until money is available to complete them. The applicant stated that he couldn't change the FHA original plan, in terms of Little Rock Historic District Commission 5 October 2000 Minutes, Page 3 itemized listings and costs. Also, there were higher cost items associated with hidden problems such as electrical, plumbing and foundation work. Costs can be shifted from one line item to another in the FHA loan as long as the completed appraised value of the house doesn't change. Financial assistance in the form of TNEP monies was discussed as a potential funding source; staff explained the funding requisites and the "gap-financing" program. Discussion focused on the contractor, FHA valuation of property, estimated rehab costs as too low and the period of time it was vacant. The applicant stated that the decision of window materials affects the October deadline and being able to get other work items completed. He bought the structure, which was four-unit apartments, associated with drug dealing; the structure was vacant for seven years prior to his purchase this summer. He asked if the windows on the rear and side elevations could be vinyl and the front ones be wooden. There was no one present to speak for or against the project. The applicant made a closing statement, that he had no option but to put in vinyl windows. Phillips stated she rehabbed a burned out house and the costs were higher than estimated; code enforcement was on her constantly to rehab the structure according to code, and she had to appear before this same group several years ago. Greer stated that the LRHDC had done their due diligence on this project request, and legal reiterated that the LRHDC had exercised discretion in its review of the expense submittals. Zoeller made a motion that the COA amendment request to install vinyl windows be denied; it passed unanimously. The last COA for consideration was: Applicant: Glenn Kubeczka Address: 920 Rock Request: Fence demolition and new construction Staff reviewed the details of the previously approved COA, its conditions and previous actions and conversations regarding the fence. Legal confirmed the notification of property owners within 150' was properly administered. Discussion ensued about the required notification process. The applicant explained the notification process and the packet of information sent to property owners; he thought he was doing more than required. It was asked how the applicant determined who the owners were within 150' of the subject property; notices were not by certified or registered mail as required. (Zoeller left meeting) It was noted that some of the notification requirements were not carried out as specified. Betty Deislinger, a nearby property owner, interrupted the discussion to express her support of the applicant's request. There was a motion to defer the request until the next meeting to allow the applicant to give proper and sufficient notice (registered or receipt) to property owners within 150' of subject property; it was unanimously approved. Richard Butler stated that he was present to support the applicant's request. (Gordon left meeting) Little Rock Historic District Commission 5 October 2000 Minutes, Page 4 Under Old business, the stairway at 1401 Cumberland was discussed. Staff reiterated the process and new changes; a letter from the applicant with additional drawings was distributed for review. The project request was approved in May to rehab two adjacent structures, the demolition and new construction of a rear stairway. As the later request item was a federal tax rehab project, approval was required by the National Parks Service, who denied the spiral stairway approved by LRHDC. The stair had to be redesigned, and the applicant submitted several drawings of different elevations and perspectives of the proposed stairway. The second set of drawings of the stairway depicted a wooden stair, perpendicular to structure; however, more detailed drawings were needed of a stairway of this size and scope. It was determined that as this project is larger, notification of owners should be given. Weldon was asked to research this aspect of notification. Staff presented the infill development plan that was funded by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program's Certified Local Government grant monies last year. The firm of Heiple +Weidower were architects for the project. The infill plan has various house plans by Charles Thompson, and it sites the structures on half a block for potential developers. There are six different plans, which may be easily incorporated into a historic district (shotgun, duplex, single­- family, two-storied apartments, etc.). Black announced that this was his last meeting due to the reassignment of his responsibilities; Weldon will be taking legal responsibilities for the LRHDC. As there was no business, the LRHDC meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.