Loading...
HDC_10 07 2004LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD October 7, 2004 Sister Cities Conference Room City Hall I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. The meeting was convened at 5:01 p.m. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Terrence Bolden Wyatt Weems Marshall Peters (arrived late and left early) Members Absent: None City Attorney: Deborah Weldon Staff Present: Andre Bernard Charles Bloom Ward Hanna II.Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects Legal ad was posted and legal notice was given on all of these items. There was one property that was left off of the abstract list on item # 1, but contact has been made with the property owner and they are aware of the public hearing today. III.Public Hearing •Item #1: 417 East 10th Street •Item #2: 601 South Rock Street •Item #3: 411 East Sixth Street •Item #4: 507 East 8th Street October 7, 2004 ITEM #1: 417 EAST 10TH STREET MINUTE RECORD STAFF REPORT (prepared by the housing department) APPLICANT: Richard C. Butler, Jr. ADDRESS: 417 East 10th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construct two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west ofl-30, on the south side of Tenth Street, between Rock and Commerce Streets. The subject project's legal description is Part oflots 10, 11 and 12, Block 58. Beginning at the NW comer of Lot 12, run thence South 150 feet to the SW comer of Lot 10; thence East along the South line of Lot 10, 51 feet; run thence North 63.5 feet; run thence West 32.5 feet; run thence North 86.5 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 12; run thence West, 18.5 feet to the point to the beginning. The middle part of Lots 11 and 12, Block 58 Begin at a point 18.5 feet East of the NW comer of Lot 121 thence run South 86.5 feet; thence east 32.5 feet; thence N 50 degrees E, 44 feet; thence North 55 feet; thence West 63.5 feet to the point of the beginning. The purpose and intent of this project is to construct a two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 1.New Construction (New Buildings); a.Of primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape ii.Scale (height and width) m.Roof shape and pitch iv.Orientation to the street v.Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays vi.Foundation height vii. Floor-to-ceiling height viii. Porch height and depth ix.Material and material color (if brick-closely matching x.mortar and brick color tones, if frame--matching lap dimensions with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding) October 7, 2004 xi. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves; watercourses; corner boards, eave depths, etc. should be similar in size) xii.Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks). b.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. NOTE: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils,fish scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. c.Of secondary structures such as garages and other outbuildings should be: i.Smaller in scale than the primary building. ii.Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. iii.Located as traditional for the street, near the alley, not close to or attached to the primary building; and iv.Compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Bob Peckley (sp) and John Jarrard were present to present the application. Richard Butler was not present. John Jarrard spoke for the applicant and stated that they would like to add workshop and guest quarters to blend with the historic buildings. It will have board and batten siding and be a two-story structure. A number of accessory structures in area have board and batten siding. The Sanford maps shows an outbuilding on this site in different location. Carolyn Newbern asked what is the relation of the roofline to the roofline of the existing house. The existing house is one story and this is two story. She asked if we will see the roofline of this structure from street? John Jarrard stated that it is on alley, and roof pitch is same as house. House is about 13 feet tall and start of roofline on new structure is 16 or October 7, 2004 17 feet. Carolyn Newbern asked about the relationship of the roofline of this structure to the house at 1002 Commerce, (which this abuts). The house at 1002 Commerce Street is a more modem building with a lower slope roof. A comment was made by Bob Peckley that Curran Hall on Capitol A venue is a one-story building with a two story outbuilding in the rear and this relationship would be similar. Dense trees will probably block the view. Wesley Walls asked if the windows were clad wood windows. The answer was yes and they will be six over six, which was taken from the main structure. Wesley Walls asked if column designs are similar to the main structure. The answer was yes. Wesley Walls asked the reason between board and batten versus lap siding. John Jarrard said that historically, outbuildings were typically made of the inexpensive materials such as rough cut board and batten siding. Bolden said that it concerned him and the applicable guideline was that the secondary building should be "simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building". You have done that with the windows and the columns, but the vertical siding and the dormers do not seem to have a corresponding feature on the main building. John Jarrard said that the board and batten is not critical. A question came up about the trees hiding the structure from the street. John Jarrard said that there were a lot of trash trees that are growing along the fence line and they would lose a couple of those. You will lose some trees by putting in the driveway. Carolyn Newbern asked what the function was of the dormer on the north elevation above the porch. She stated that the dormer troubled her. Carolyn Newbern disclosed that when the application was first received, Carolyn Newbern did call the owner of the property at 1002 Commerce. She asked if the property owner knew of the application since the son lived at the address and the property owner did not live there. To this date, the McRae's have not received any information about this application. The abstract list was examined and errors have been found on the list. Ms. McRae has notified staff via email that she was aware of the application. Carolyn Newbern mentioned this to the commission to state that 1) she has had conversations with Ms. McRae, and 2) that a professional abstract company did not find information that two other individuals had been able to find. Carolyn Newbern will recuse herself from the vote. October 7, 2004 Andre Bernard noted for the record that Mr. Peters was present. The applicant noted for the record that Beech abstract had given him good service before and that he notified all that was on the list. He did not verify the names on the list to double check Boyd Maher stated that this was a good design, but was essentially an attempt to recreate a historic structure. There is nothing wrong with that but the guidelines state it should follow the general character of primary building. The dormers and vertical siding do not reflect the principal structure. If the commission does want to approve this sort of thing in the future, your revision of the guidelines should reflect that. Wesley Walls made a comment on the dormer issue, that he thought it was to mitigate the overall height of the structure, to keep the massing lower. Marshall Peters asked Boyd Maher if vertical siding was used back in that period of time. Boyd Maher that it was. They drew elements from other outbuildings in the area. Marshall Peters states that it being substantially different from the house, it distinguishes itself as an addition, not an old 1 structure. Wesley Walls made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Marshall Peters seconded. The motion was approved 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal from Carolyn Newbern. October 7, 2004 ITEM #2: 601 South Rock Street MINUTE RECORD STAFF REPORT (prepared by the housing department) APPLICANT: Robert Fegtly and Don Terry ADDRESS: 601 South Rock Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Install Signage PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west of 1-30, on the comer of Sixth and Rock Streets. The subject project's legal description is North 3 feet of the South 15 feet of the East 50 feet Lot 2, Block 151, Original City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Pulaski County. The purpose and intent of this project is install signage. There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 2.Signs a.If historic (original or early to the district) should be preserved. b.Which flash or rotate should not be used. c.Should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially-­ used residential building. d.That are free standing may be used where necessary but should be low and small and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish. e.Attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between posts, flush-mounted small signs on building wall, small projecting signs, or as part of an awning. f.Should not cover or obscure architectural features. g.Of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or commercially-used residential buildings. h.Should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with remote sources. i.Should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood. J.Should be of a size proportionate to the building, not oversize. k.Should utilize logos or symbols for businesses. I.Should have no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate with the building colors. m.Should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and October 7, 2004 letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60 percent of the total sign area. n.For mounting on masonry walls should be anchored into the mortar, not masonry. o.Should otherwise comply with the Little Rock sign ordinance provisions. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The same applicant owns items two and three and the sign request are similar. Discussion will for both applications will occur simultaneously, and separate vote counts will relate to each item. The applicant's made a brief presentation and indicated that they currently own four buildings along 6th Street. They are all residential buildings used for a business and are requesting two signs at two of the properties. They believe that these signs will help identify their businesses. Commissioner Newbern commented that the dimensions of the signs are well within the guidelines specifications. She also added that they have done a good job with preserving all of the different types of residential structures that they owned. She asked if they had ever entertained the idea of making the surrounds and postings relate to the architecture of corresponding buildings. The applicant responded, "No," and said that they would like to be consistent with the other sign on their property. For the first business signage they used an existing sign post and frame. Commissioner Newbern had concerns about making the sign look better. The applicant responded that they were open to "whatever" they (the Commission) felt and that they initially thought the Commission would have accepted their design since the were using an existing sign design in the area. Commissioner Peters asked if this was the Harold King. The applicant clarified that Harold is 411 East 6th Street. Additional conversation continued on homes on the street and businesses in them. October 7, 2004 The applicant noted that the sign on the property at 409 East 6th would be off to the side of the house and angled towards the street. The applicant said the sign would be to the west side, and just off of the parking lot. Commissioner Newbern asked where they would put the one on Rock Street. The applicant replied that most people access the area on 6th Street and would prefer it to be visible from 6th Street. He further said it would be on the north side of the property and single sided facing 6th Street. The applicant added that the sign would be on the east side of Rock Street facing 6th Street. Commissioner Newbern made comments on the sign placement referring to a map. The applicant referred to a map and pointed out specific locations. Commissioner Newbern had concerns about how the sign would look on Rock Street. The applicant said it may not be easily visible. Commissioner Walls asked about the sign placement again. Again the applicant stated that the sign would be angled toward East 6th Street. Commissioner Newbern said if she owned the house she would like to make the front of it look very nice. She indicated that she felt that the sign at an angle did not fit the character of the house. She suggested that it be parallel to Rock Street and double sided. The applicant responded by saying it would not be easily visible from 6th Street. The Commissioners clarified their concerns of the angle of the sign. The applicant said the Commission knows more about historical homes and is open to suggestions of new placement. Commissioner Weems said that maybe they should move the sign back to help screen an air conditioner. The applicant also noted that they would be modeling the sign off of the property at 521 Sixth Street. Commissioner Newbern said that would be nicer. Additional discussion began regarding sign designs and hiding the air conditioner units. Commissioner Newbern moved to approve the sign at 601 South Rock Street be approved with the recommendation that it be placed close to the rear of the building on the 6th Street side with proportions and placement so it will partially obscure the air conditioning unit. Commissioner Walls seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Newburn began a motion for additional signage allowances. Deputy City Attorney noted that the application was only for one sign. Commissioner Newbern withdrew her motion. Andre Bernard noted that any change in design needs to be presented to staff. Andre summarized the previous vote and it was agreed that it was accurate. The applicant clarified the proposed placement of the sign at 411 East 6th Street. October 7, 2004 Commissioner Peters made a motion that the sign be approved for 411 East 6th Street as submitted on the northwest comer of the lot as so submitted with keeping with the guidelines, and properly obtaining all necessary permits. Commissioner Weems seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously. October 7, 2004 ITEM #3: 411 East Sixth Street MINUTE RECORD APPLICANT: Robert Fegtly and Don Terry ADDRESS: 411 East Sixth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Install Signage PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west ofl-30, on the south side of Sixth Street, between Rock and Sherman Streets. The subject project's legal description is the North 10' lot 10, and lots 11 and 12, Block 151 original City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Pulaski County. The purpose and intent of this project is install signage. There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 3.Signs a.If historic (original or early to the district) should be preserved. b.Which flash or rotate should not be used. c.Should be kept to a minimum, one per house or two per commercially-­ used residential building. d.That are free standing may be used where necessary but should be low and small and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish. e.Attached to a building should be painted on windows or doors, small identification panels at entrances, small signs hung on porches between posts, flush-mounted small signs on building wall, small projecting signs, or as part of an awning. f.Should not cover or obscure architectural features. g.Of neon or internal lighting should not be used on dwellings or commercially-used residential buildings. h.Should not be illuminated with visible bulbs or luminous paints, but with remote sources. i.Should be of traditional materials such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze, not plywood, plastic, or unfinished wood. j.Should be of a size proportionate to the building, not oversize. k.Should utilize logos or symbols for businesses. I.Should have no more than three colors and use colors that coordinate with the building colors. m.Should have traditional lettering such as serif, sans serif, or script and letters which do not exceed 18 inches in height or cover more than 60 percent of the total sign area. n.For mounting on masonry walls should be anchored into the mortar, not October 7, 2004 masonry. o.Should otherwise comply with the Little Rock sign ordinance provisions. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) This item was discussed in conjunction with item two. Please see Minute Summary for item two for further discussion. Please refer to the minutes of item two. Commissioner Peters made a motion that the sign be approved for 411 East 6th Street as submitted on the northwest corner of the lot as so submitted with keeping with the guidelines, and properly obtaining all necessary permits. Commissioner Weems seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously. October 7, 2004 ITEM #4: 507 East Eighth Street MINUTE RECORD APPLICANT: Marshall Peters ADDRESS: 507 East 8th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construct two-story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west of I-30, on the south side of Eighth Street, between Sherman and Commerce Streets. The subject project's legal description is Johnson PT Blk 5 beg where S line E8th Street crosses QP line E 97 ½' on North property line Block for Pob S Par 70 QP line 90' E. The purpose and intent ofthis project is window removal-three (3) upper, one (1) lower from the east rear side; one (1) lowers south (replaced with one removed upper) and four (4)non operable from lower southwest comer (west side to be replaced by one (1) removed from lower east side). There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 4.Windows a.Should be preserved in their original locations, size, and design and with their original materials and numbers of panes. b.Should not be added to primary facades or to secondary facades where readily visible. c.Should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in-kind to match the originals in material and design. d.Should have snap-on or flush muntins. e.Screens and/or storms should be wood or baked-on or anodized aluminum and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames. f.Should not have shutters unless the building originally had them, the shutters are of louvered wood construction, and the shutters will fit the window opening (so that if closed, they would cover the window opening). g.Should not have security bars where visible from the street. NEIGHBORHOOD IMP ACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. October 7, 2004 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Commissioner Peters was the applicant for this item. Commissioner Peters was excused from the meeting. Mr. Peters was presented the item to the Commission. Commissioner Weems asked the applicant what was wrong with the windows. Mr. Peters responded that they were bad, rotten. Mr. Peters noted that the windows on the southeast of the building would be removed and moved to a location on the "west south" of the house to be visible from the street. He also would like to replace windows that were covered up by the siding and were on the rear of the house. Commissioner Newbern clarified the application. Mr. Peters noted he should be back in the future to request siding removal. Mr. Peters showed additional window plans to the Commission. Commissioner Newbern asked how the windows would relate to the street. Mr. Peters said their "top line" would be the same. He added that they will be smaller windows such as the window going up to the attic stair and the window in the pantry. He added that they would be more historically correct. Mr. Peters added that the opening is fourteen inches high and inoperable. He added that part of this application was to remove those and put in a functional one over one window. Mr. Peters noted that an addition on the rear of the house was done in 1964. He also noted that he was not certain on the age of his house. It may be 1894, or 1896. Commissioner Newbern asked additional questions. Mr. Peters clarified the application. A discussion began on whether or not some of the windows were visible from the street. Commissioner Newbern asked about the window design. She questioned on whether or not the window should imitate the old or the new addition. Mr. Peters thanked her for pointing it out. This would reinforce that the addition was a later nature. Commissioner Bolden made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the recommendation that the west first floor rear window on the west be designed to resemble the multi-paned casement windows above it to reflect that the a new addition. Commissioner Newbern Seconded. The motion carried, 4 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. III.New and Old Business October 7, 2004 Discussion began regarding the upcoming Calendar for future meetings. Additional conversation occurred regarding possible Commission conflicts with the Planning Commission meetings. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.