Loading...
HDC_11 07 2002City Of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 7 NOVEMBER 2002 MINUTES of the LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Commissioners Present: Howard H. Gordon Carolyn Newbern Marshall Peters Wesley Walls Wyatt Weems Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Debra Weldon The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order and roll call determined that there was a quorum. There were no minutes presented for approval. The only Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) was: Applicant: Jimmy Moses Address: 517 E. Capitol Avenue Request: New construction of condominiums and associated parking The applicant introduced Tom Adams, the architect, and his partner, Rett Tucker. Moses gave an overview of the project for the group as new development of twenty condominiums and required parking. He stated that he represents the property owners who own also the adjacent property (Rainwater Apartments); it is anticipated that the owners will also rehabilitate the apartments at a later date to be compatible with proposed project. Moses stated that the proposed project is compatible with the historic district and downtown development, as it provides new housing units in the downtown area and first time homeowners the opportunity to buy into downtown. It is anticipated that the project will help to upgrade and build a revitalized neighborhood. Adams described the project from the rendering, site plan and elevations. (NOTE: The following are portions of the staff report and recommendations). The subject property is located on the south side of Capitol Avenue between Rock and Sherman streets and between the Rainwater Apartments and Trapnell Hall. Currently, the property is a surface parking lot. The proposed site, of about 41,963 square feet, fronts both Capitol and 6t' streets. The project request involves the new construction of a three- storied residential condominium (twenty units), with primary access from Capitol. Associated parking of 60 spaces, as required by ordinance, is Little Rock Historic District Commission Minutes of 7 November 2002 meeting, page 2 accessed from the north via a 20' wide driveway between the two structures. The condominiums consist of two L- shaped buildings with a 12' x 27'courtyard in the middle; the two buildings are a mirror image of the other. The building facing north consists of five pilastered bays: the east and west corner bays have balconies on all floors with French doors; the second and fourth bays have a grouping of three windows (3'- 6 x 5' -9) and the 24' center bay has a grouping of six double hung, wood (with aluminum) clad windows. The front building is 90' long, 39' wide on the west and 70' on the east, along the driveway; the back building is 72' long, 72' wide on the west and 30' wide on the east. A 6' interior concrete walkway connects the two buildings and courtyard. Open stairs are located on the northwest and the southeast corners; an elevator is situated on the southeast comer. The exterior wall finish is brick veneer. The 6/12 roof has architectural asphalt shingles. The gabled ends are stucco and cement board; the stucco wall finish extends to the third floor elevation. The railings on the balconies, interior. courtyard and stairs are black metal. The first and second floors have seven units each, and the third floor has six units. Condo units range in size from 925s.f to 1,612s.f. Adjacent to the proposed site, on the east, is the Rainwater Apartments, which is listed on the architectural survey as contributing, ca. 1915, in the Craftsman styled fashion. It is presently utilized as offices. To the west of the proposed site is Trapnell Hall, an 1843 Greek Revival. structure, which is architecturally contributing to the historic district. Trapnall serves as a public facility. Due east, is Curran Hall, (ca. 1842), which was rehabilitated and serves as the city's Visitor Information Center. To the west are three multi-family structures; on the same block, there are seven additional multi- family structures. From the north side of 6th south to 91h Street, the neighborhood is predominantly multi - family structures; the majority of the structures are early 20th century with a few constructed in the 1950s. There are several public facilities in the area. The proposed site is four blocks south of The River Market district, two blocks south of Acxiom building, four blocks east of Main Street and two blocks west of I-30. The design guidelines state that "New construction of primary structures, should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in....." 1) shape; 2) scale; 3) roof shape and pitch; 4) orientation to the street; 5) location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays; 6) foundation height; 7) floor to ceiling height; 8) porch height and depth; 9) material and material color; 10) texture; and 11) placement on the lot. Additionally, new construction "of primary structures, while blending in with adjacent buildings, should not be too imitative of historic styles so that new buildings can be distinguished (differentiated) from historic buildings." The proposed project meets all criteria. At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. (NOTE: the previous was taken in part from the staff report and recommendations) Little Rock Historic District Commission Minutes of 7 November 2002 meeting, page 3 Adams stated that the proposed project is similar to the Rainwater Apartments in massing, scale, setback and color and is a residential project that is attempting to look like its neighbor. There is parking in the rear of the property, with the required two parking spaces per unit. The asphalt- shingled roof is open in the middle for the courtyard. Walls asked which was newer, the rendering or the elevations (the later). It was noted that there was a discrepancy between the rendering and elevations in terms of the north/south fagade. There is the appearance of a front entry on the rendering but elevation drawings depict the front middle fagade with windows only. There was discussion of the front elevation in terms of its appearance and how it would be constructed. Gordon as acting chair, asked if there were other questions by LRHDC; then of the public present. Jim Strawn who lives in apartments on the northwest corner of Sherman and 6t' streets asked about parking (as it is in close proximity to his property) and asked about the project's site drainage. There was discussion about balconies on the structure and on the adjacent apartments. It was stated that this new residential construction is an infill development that fits into the historic district. Boyd Maher, as representative of AHPP, stated that his office reviewed the elevations and supported the project. Staff stated that while zoning was concerned about the setbacks depicted on the site plan, the project has not been reviewed by the Planning and Development Department (P &D), which is required. It was noted that the review process normally starts with the LRHDC and then goes to P &D for their review comments, approval, etc. The project site is in the Urban Use (UU) zoning, which allows multi-family residential by right. Peters made a motion that the project be approved as presented with staff recommendations, which were read into the record: 1) fence details must be provided to include materials, gates, sidewalks, siting, elevation and section details, etc.; 2) the final parking plans must be submitted, to include surface materials, entries, curb cuts, landscape and setback requirements; 3) applicant must submit one set of final plans (to include site plan, elevations) to staff; 4) project must meet all city codes and zoning regulations; and, 5) should the project scope change in any fashion in terms of material, massing, scale, profile and size, staff will be notified and appropriate actions taken. Walls seconded and the vote was unanimous. Gordon pointed out that the rendering did not agree with the elevations, as this was a point of discussion during the COA presentation. It was noted that the staff report of the project relied solely on the elevation drawings completely. Walls stated as an architect, it is not unusual for there to be a difference between the two, especially if there are changes made to the elevations, which are not made to the rendering. Gordon said that renderings should depict the elevations correctly. The state preservation office noted that there was a difference between the two (rendering and elevation) but his office had no problem with either. Little Rock Historic District Commission Minutes of 7 November 2002 meeting, page 4 There was discussion about what to do when there's a discrepancy between renderings and elevations. It was pointed out that the COA application process should catch any discrepancies or inaccuracies. There was a general discussion of renderings, elevations, approval process and how to improve it in the future — Gordon stated that it is an issue that staff should pick up, but renderings should accurately reflect the elevations. In the future, there should be more due diligence on the part of staff and more aggressiveness on part of commissioners to question any discrepancy or inaccuracy of an application. The consensus is that the LRHDC will meet with staff once the subject COA has the fence design and other plans submitted for final approval. Under new /old business, staff noted that the questionnaires distributed to the LRHDC should be completed and returned to staff. Also, the revised bathroom design for MacArthur Park is what was approved previously. Staff noted that Norio Winter plans to return to Little Rock 14 January to meet with the LRHDC and city board to present his recommendations for the historic district design guidelines. The city received a CLG grant for Winters' return to Little Rock. Boyd Maher stated that the state review board recently approved the nomination of an addition to the state review board. Also, he stated that the North Little Rock History Commission is hosting a workshop on the 26th on brick tuckpointing and it is open to all. There was general discussion about 1000 Rock and its noncompliant vinyl windows in the local ordinance historic district. Hopefully, this issue, which has been unresolved for a couple of years will be resolved after Winters' presentation. Following a motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:15pm.