Loading...
HDC_12 10 2018Page 1 of 29 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 MINUTES Monday, December 10, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Dale Pekar Amber Jones Robert Hodge Frances McSwain Members Absent: Lauren Frederick City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Ed Garland Citizens Present: Randy Mourning Gabe Holstrum Lindsey Boerner Denise Arnett Patricia Blick Cleveland Thomas Charlsetta Harville Page Wilson Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online. A motion was made to amend the order of the agenda to move items 1, 5, and 6 to the beginning and to add the election of officers to the end of the agenda. The motion was made by Commissioner Robert Hodge and was seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). Applicants for items 1, 5 and 6 did not provide proper notice. Those items were voted on in a group and they were deferred to the January 14, 2019 hearing. See individual staff reports for vote counts. Page 2 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: James Moses, Newmark Moses Tucker Partners ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue FILE NUMBER: HDC18-021 COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: “Some Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick detailing.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. This item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue east of the apartment building. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 12, 2016, a COA to allow the existing fence to remain was denied by the HDC. There has been no change to the fence since that application. On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construction of a duplex at 507 Rock Street that included a three foot tall fence in that location. Location of Project Page 3 of 29 Capitol Avenue fence view from east Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines on pages 58-60 state that fences on street frontage and front yard should be 36” tall. This fence in question has street frontage along Capitol Ave. The staff report of May 11, 2015 for the original application stated that the fence along Capitol Avenue was to be thirty-six inches tall. Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application, stated that the fence on Capitol Avenue was planned to be thirty-six inches tall. The parking lot adjacent to the fence was to be expanded and reconfigured with automatic gates to secure the parking lot. However, the project plans changed. The duplex was not built and a swimming pool was built in its place. The parking lot was not expanded either. In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is labeled “6’ Fence”. Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled “3’ Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence depicted in blue in the photos. It is immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building. The six foot fence does not provide any additional security to the parked cars, to the air conditioning units located to the east of the building, or to the property in general. The cars are parked in a non-secured parking lot that has the alley functioning as the aisle. There is not a fence on the south side of the property to separate this rear yard from the neighboring property or the alley. It is possible to enter the area without going through any gates Aerial view of parking lot Page 4 of 29 or over any fence. The fence was approved at the thirty-six inch height but was installed at the six foot height. Quote from minutes of December 12, 2016 “Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an oversight on their part that the fence was installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to allow them to keep the fence. “Chair BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had been installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required. Jimmy Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that it is not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but that the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there was a variety of fences and does not believe that this fence is out of character.” Trapnall Hall is owned by the State of Arkansas and is not subject to the review of the Historic District Commission. A courtesy presentation was made to the HDC on February 11, 2013 concerning the installation of the fence at Trapnall Hall’s parking lot directly across the alley from this application. In summary, this fence was installed contrary to the approved COA. This fence does not provide any physical deterrent from foot traffic entering the site. This fence does not provide any additional security to the cars parked off the alley. This fence does not totally enclose the parking. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land that would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell View of 401 E Capitol from the southeast showing no fence on south property line. View of two fences from the east showing height difference. Page 5 of 29 and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Page 6 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs ADDRESS: 1419 S Commerce FILE NUMBER: HDC18-030 COA REQUEST: Demolition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1419 S Commerce. The property’s legal description is “Lot 5, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1886. The 2006 survey form states: “This simple early Colonial Revival style structure with asymmetrical front and porch between front and side wing. Front porch has been rebuilt. Typical bay window and window shutters reflect style of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Demolition of the structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 27, 1998, a COC was approved and issued to Thomas Inner City for maintenance on the outside and interior rehab. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition. The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the dist rict should be reviewed carefully. Location of Project Page 7 of 29 The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission. The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last twenty years. The current owner has owned the building since 1998. A building permit was issued in 2001 for rehab, which expired with no inspections or approvals issued. On or about September 9, 2005, a stop work order was issued for installation of new windows and siding without HDC approval or building permits. A permit was issued for rehab on March 29, 2006 for maintenance but expired with no inspections or approvals issued. It is unsure if the work was started on the 2006 permit. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since January 24, 2012. The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternat ive that will be discussed farther along in the report. All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000. The property at 1419 Commerce is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property was income producing. The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner. 1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 8 of 29 The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its architectural integrity although it is in need of repair. The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property has been redeemed for back taxes in 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and again in 2018. At the sale in early 2018, there was a bid on the property of $7,400. That sale was not completed since the owner redeemed the property by paying the back taxes and fees of $2,791. The bid of $7,400 proves that a private individual was interested in the property enough to win the bid on the property. This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may or may not remove any existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to occupy the structure for their personal use. Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data. If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $5,500 for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed. Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove that there is a market for housing in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the item. He stated there was $423 in outstanding liens on the property now. They have been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from the current owners. It has been on the Unsafe Vacant UV list since 2012. Appearing in front of the HDC is the first step in the demolition process. He spoke of the alternative processes available. If the owner has intent to rehab the structure, the owner needs to meet with the Director of the Housing Department and provide a detailed scope of work and a timeline on when the work will be completed. They will need to Page 9 of 29 have proof of financial capacity to finish the project. A 90 day “bring to code” building permit is issued and Staff follows up after 90 days to see how much work has been done. The Housing department may extend the “bring to code” permit for additional 90 day periods. Chair Ted Holder asked if this was a finish in 90 days or just to start in 90 days permit. Mr. Garland said it was to make progress on the rehab. He also stated that they take lots of photos during the project to document the building activities. Cleveland Thomas, the owner of the house, said that the tornado of 1999 tore up the house. He has had some hardship rehabbing the house. The loves the structure and does not want it to be torn down. People have wanted to buy the house in the past, but the buyer fell through. Regions Bank has approved a $95,000 loan on the house but he had not found a contractor to do it for that price. He does not have any additional money to put towards the renovation of the house. He obtained a letter from a person that was willing to buy the house. He said he would sell the house. Chair Ted Holder asked if he considered donating it t o the City Land Bank. Mr. Thomas replied that he wanted the house rehabbed and that he has had trouble with homeless people. Chair Holder reiterated that Mr. Thomas would like to rehab but does not have a contractor. He continued and asked what would happen if the time expires and he cannot sell it, it could be torn down. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked why he had not put up a for sale sign on the property. Mr. Thomas said that he has in the past but it was taken down. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be explored before the house is demolished. She shared a metaphor of a quilt where certain pieces were missing where the quilt is the neighborhood and individual houses were pieces of the quilt. The quilt and the neighborhood cannot stay together if there are too many m issing pieces. Gabe Holstrum, 2102 Louisiana, stated that he was the person that was the $7400 bidder at the tax sale. He is interested in buying it if it is to be sold. He continued that three buyers in the audience should encourage the owner to sell. Lindsey Boerner, 401 E Daisy Bates, asked the commission to defer the application in order to allow rehab of the structure to occur. She did not want it torn down and welcomes the opportunity for a new family to move into the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard stated that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the rehabilitation process. Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to defer with Staff conditions. Commissioner Frances McSwain seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Page 10 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Three. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs ADDRESS: 1414 Park Lane FILE NUMBER: HDC18-031 COA REQUEST: Demolition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1414 Park Lane. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1907. The 2000 survey form states: “Typical Colonial Revival cottage for the area.” It also states “After her husband’s death, this was the home of Mrs. Regina (John A.) Schmelzer. She and her husband had lived at 1123 Rock S. Rock.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Demolition. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 2, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Pastor C. Harville and Wali Caradine for exterior renovations. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition. The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the district should be reviewed carefully. Location of Project Page 11 of 29 The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission. The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last twenty three years. On August 30, 1995, the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Housing Programs, sent a letter to the then owner, George Pike Jr, stating that an inspection had been made of the house and it was found to be “unsafe, unfit for human inhabitation, offensive to the neighborhood, and it is dangerous to persons in the vicinity or lawfully passing by the structure.” On March 27, 1996, the property changed hands to Lighthouse Inc. and they have owned it ever since. Multiple permits were issued on the structure from 2001 – 2005. From June 2000 – February 2001, permits for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $17,200 to bring the structure to code. Most of these permits expired without completion. In mid-2003, permits were issued for building and electrical work were issued for $20,000 to bring to code and they expired without completing the work. From August 2004 – September 2005, permits for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $24,900 to bring the structure to code. Most of these permits expired without completion. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since 2013. The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternative that will be discussed farther along in the report. All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued 1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 12 of 29 a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000. The property at 1414 Park Lane is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property was income producing. The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner. The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its architectural integrity although it is in need of repair. The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. They are as listed below. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property was redeemed for back taxes in 1999. This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may remove any existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to occupy the structure for their personal use. Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data. If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $6,200 for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed. Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove that there is a market for housing in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming. Page 13 of 29 COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the owner was in the audience and that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the rehabilitation process. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the item. He stated there was $704.32 in outstanding liens on the property now. If the house was sold to a new owner with plans of a complete renovation, they may contact the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs to discuss options on the outstanding liens. Commissioner Frances McSwain said she drove by both of them today and asked how much of it had been destroyed by fire. Mr. Garland said he did not know exactly how much. They had an estimate from 2013 for the renovation expenses and would want to get a contractor opinion on what it would cost for a total rehab on the house. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property goes back to the City, if the liens could be forgiven. Mr. Garland said that each case is different and that liens can be forgiven. Liens are against the property, not the property owner. Charlsetta Harville, the owner of the property, stated that she was the president of the Lighthouse Center CDC. She stated that she has spent more than $70,000 on the rehab of the house to date. She spoke of vandalism and stolen pipes and materials form the house. She is aware of the fire damage. A contractor she had to look at the house recommended that it be torn down. She will go with what the HDC recommends for her to do. She would consider selling the house or building a new one in its place if the old one was demolished. Chair Ted Holder asked if she had a preference to sell or rehab. Ms. Harville stated that she would rather sell than to rehab. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked her if she was aware of the potential of $10,000 in liens of the city demolished her house. Ms. Harville stated that the Lighthouse Center had donated lots to the Downtown CDC before and the house is more than she can take on. She continued that she thought she could get it demolished for less money than that. Vice Chair Russell said that the application for demolition was the city’s application not hers. If she was to demolish it, she would need to reapply for the demolition herself and go through this process again. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property is for sale now. Ms. Harville said it was not but she would be willing to consider selling it. Vice Chair Russell asked her if a six month deferral was approved, would she agree to list the house for sale. She replied yes. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if she had ever listed it for sale before. She said that she had not. She used to keep insurance on it, but does not anymore. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be explored before the house is demolished. She said that there were lots of photos of the house before that would aid in the renovation of the Schmelzer House. Page 14 of 29 Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the item for six months with the condition that the property be listed for sale within one month. The motion was seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). . Page 15 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Four. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Shawn Govind, 315ONSixth LLC ADDRESS: 315 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-033 COA REQUEST: Awning and Lights PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 315 East 6th Street. The property’s legal description is the” west 65’ of lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 41, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The building is known as the Peachtree Apartments and is a circa 1920’s building with painted brick. The 1988 Survey considers it a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for replacement of the Awning with a different style and material and adding lights near the front door. A letter of support from AHPP is included near the end of the staff report. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 10, 2007, a COA was approved and issued to The Rep Theatre for replacing all windows, removing window ac units and installing mini-split ac units on the roof. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposed awning is an aluminum canopy with an extruded fascia/gutter and a flat roof deck. The support tubes that extend from the canopy to the wall are 1.5” square tubes and the plates on the wall would be 8” square. The fascia, support tubes and wall plates are to be in a bronze color. The overall size would be 11’ wide and 4’ projection from the building. Location of Project Page 16 of 29 The guidelines state that “Awnings may be added to commercial buildings if physical or pictorial evidence exists. Awnings should be of traditional design, materials, and placement. Canvas, acrylic, or vinyl coated materials are preferable to fixed metal or wood awnings.” The flat awning is a departure from the shed (angled) awning that is currently on the building. However, the lines of this awning blends with the architecture of the building. The proper location to install the awning would be to match the division line above the front door and below the glass block windows. The style of this awning is appropriate to the Existing north elevation 2007 photo of building Entrance Detail Contributing and Non-contributing map Awning Page 17 of 29 building. The proposed light fixture is from Maxim lighting and is a 30” tall fixture in bronze finish. These fixtures would be mounted on both sides of the front entry. The application did not state how high on the façade that they would be mounted. The Guidelines state that “if historic light fixtures do not exist or require replacement, concealed light fixtures, fixtures of a simple design, or fixtures appropriate to the period of the building should be used”. There is currently a fixture under the existing canopy. These would be in addition to that lighting. AHPP believes that this is the original fixture. The style of the proposed fixtures are appropriate with the c. 1920 building. However, utilizing the existing light over the entry area would comply with the guidelines more closely. The letter from AHPP concerning the conservation easement dated November 8, 2018 does not include the light fixtures. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Retain the existing light fixture over the door and do not install the proposed “Maxim” light fixtures. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He stated that the application had changed and the lights on the side of the building were removed from the project, bollards were added, and that the existing light under the canopy would be cleaned and repaired. The awning continues to be in the project. He stated that there is an additional letter from AHPP concerning the Conservation Easement that supports the bollards. A cutsheet of the bollards was handed out to the Commission in the agenda meeting. He continued that the applicant would need to amend his application verbally in the hearing. Mr. Shawn Govind introduced himself to the Commission and Chair Ted Holder asked him if he was officially amending his application for the addition of the bollards and deletion of the wall Existing light over entry. Light Page 18 of 29 lights. He stated yes that he was. Chair Holder then asked him how many bollards were proposed. He answered that there would be two on each side for a total of four. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked about the specification of the lights in the bollards. He quoted the specification sheet that said it was a warm white light but questioned the 5700K color temperature. Mr. Govind stated that the intention was to have a warm colored light in the bollard. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked if there was a division line and existing canopy between the glass block and the doorway and if the awning was going to be installed there. Mr. Govind stated that it would be. Back on the bollards, Mr. Govind stated that he picked out the bollard for their style and definitely wants to go with an incandescent type light. There were no citizens that spoke on the item. A motion was made to approve this item as amended by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Commissioner Hodge stated he voted for the item because it adhered to the guidelines and that it was a benefit to the neighborhood, Commissioners Jones, Pekar, McSwain, and Chair Holder voted for it because it was within the guidelines. Vice Chair Russell stated that the awning was complementary to the style of the building. Page 19 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Five. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Randy Mourning, Angel Properties LLC ADDRESS: 1002 Cumberland, 215-221 E 10th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-034 COA REQUEST: Fencing STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this item due to improper notice being made to the property owners in the area of influence. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Page 20 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Six. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Jamie Taylor, Bluebird Realty ADDRESS: 409 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-035 COA REQUEST: Sign PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 409 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “East 50’ of Lot 1 and the North 35’ of the East 50’ of Lot 2, Block 151, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c 1907. The 2006 survey form states: “A National Register Property similar to adjacent Thompson designed home. Large ionic (paried) columns and decorative dormer with Palladian window provides decoration.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Sign to be mounted on the same apparatus as the previous sign. It is the same size and shape. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 25, 2018, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for the replacement of concrete steps. On October 3, 2017, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a new roof. On January 20, 2016, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for a new sign. On June 23, 2014, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a repair work due to storm. On March 4, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for fence enclosures around air conditioning units. Location of Project Page 21 of 29 Proposed sign Previous approved sign PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is to replace the existing sign for DDF and replace with another sign of the same size, shape, and materials for the new tenant, Bluebird Realty. The sign is a 1/8’ aluminum plate cut to shape. The address oval is 3/16” aluminum plate bonded to the background. The text, background color and logo are printed on high performance vinyl and mounted to the plates. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a sign permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 22 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Seven. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Frances McSwain ADDRESS: 407 E 10th street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-036 COA REQUEST: Storage building PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 407 E 10th Street. The property’s legal description is a long legal but can be described as Part of the East 75’ of Lots 1 and 2, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family cottage was built in 1853. The 2006 survey form states: “This one story hall and parlor Folk style house has the typical gabled wing to the rear for added space. Some colonial revival elements, such as the decorated entry are apparent.” “George Kadel built this house on one of three lots he bought in 1852. Porch was removed and building was moved several feet when remodeling occurred.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the addition of a Storage building to be located in the rear of the property with board and batten siding and a corrugated metal roof. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 28, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Vernon Carey for a fence in the rear yard. On April 3, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to Richard Butler for the renovation of the structure. Location of Project Page 23 of 29 Proposed north elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to add a storage shed to the rear of the property adjacent to the alley. The footprint will be a 10’ x 12’. It will feature a gable roof with the gable facing 10 th Street. The siding will be a fiber cement product such as Hardie Board. The battens will be installed ten inch on center. The height of the roof will be 9’ at the ridge sloping down to 7’6”. The roof will be corrugated metal. There will be a three foot overhang on the front or west side and the other sides will have a one foot overhang. On the west side, there will be a door and a window. The west side will not be visible from the street. The building will be electrified. The shed will be painted to match the house. The six foot wood privacy fence will be partially removed and relocated as this storage shed will function as part of the fencing strategy. On siting of the structure, the placement at the rear corner of the lot off the alley is an appropriate location. The overall height of the structure at nine feet is appropriate and subordinate to the house. The proportions of the structure are appropriate. The rhythm of the elements of the building is appropriate for a storage shed, one façade with a door and window and the other facades without. The scale of the building is subordinate to the size of the house and is in keeping with other storage buildings in the district. The massing with the porch to the west is traditional for out buildings in the area. Porches were often on the non-alley side of the building. The entrance area of the building will not be visible from the street. The wall areas will have the appearance of board and battens with the battens ten inches on center. Previously, Staff inventoried board and batten structures in the district. Staff found that the battens were placed twelve inches on center a majority of the times but did find one example with ten inches on center. Board and batten siding is an appropriate siding choice for the district. Detailing will be simple. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the November 26, 2018 pre application hearing. The comments from the commissioners are summarized as follows: SITING – no issues. HEIGHT – no issues. Page 24 of 29 PROPORTION – no issues. RHYTHM – no issues. SCALE – no issues. MASSING – roof form / mass is not typical. Consider traditional gable facing 10th Street. Consider matching roof slopes. ENTRANCE AREA – no issues. WALL AREAS – are materials compatible – wood and hardie plank ROOF AREA – roof is not typical. FAÇADE – Board and batten is typical for the neighborhood – however, house is horizontal siding. Consider matching house. DETAILING– no issues. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 4. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Commissioner Frances McSwain stated for the record that she was recusing from this item because it was her personal residence. She also stated that she was authorizing Patricia Blick to represent her on the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar stated that he was recusing from the item since he is in the area of influence. Both commissioners left the hearing room. West façade not visible from street Location of storage shed Page 25 of 29 Patricia Blick, 1702 N Palm, stated that she would be representing the applicant on this item. She stated that the design of the shed met the eleven design factors in the guidelines and that board and batten siding is typical for out buildings in the area. A motion was made to approve this item as submitted by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Frederick), and 2 recusals (McSwain and Pekar). Chair Holder and Commissioner Hodge voted for the item because it adhered to the guidelines, Commissioner Jones stated that it adhered to the Guidelines as an accessory structure and Vice Chair Russell sated it conformed to the eleven design factors. Page 26 of 29 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Eight. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Frances McSwain ADDRESS: 407 E 10th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-037 COA REQUEST: Storm Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 407 E 10th Street. The property’s legal description is a long legal but can be described as Part of the East 75’ of Lots 1 and 2, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family cottage was built in 1853. The 2006 survey form states: “This one story hall and parlor Folk style house has the typical gabled wing to the rear for added space. Some colonial revival elements, such as the decorated entry are apparent.” “George Kadel built this house on one of three lots he bought in 1852. Porch was removed and building was moved several feet when remodeling occurred.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Storm Windows on all of the windows in the house. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 28, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Vernon Carey for a fence in the rear yard. On April 3, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to Richard Butler for the renovation of the structure. Location of Project Page 27 of 29 Typical windows on the north elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines state on page 14: “Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do not require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Exterior screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in a color to match the window sash paint color and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames. Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may also be mounted on the inside of windows. Half screen and screen or storm windows smaller than original window are not recommended.” The storm windows specified are a “low profile exterior storm such as the Allied Historic One Lite.” The cover letter states that the storm windows will provide energy conservation, noise reduction and security. The storm windows will be custom made to fit the existing openings with a finish to match or blend with the existing trim paint. Storm windows such as these have been installed on the Old State House Museum and are difficult to discern that there are storm windows present until one gets within five feet of the window. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the November 26, 2018 pre application hearing. There were no written comments from the commissioners concerning the storm windows. Photo of storm window on Old State house Page 28 of 29 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 5. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Commissioner Frances McSwain stated at the beginning of the previous item for the record that she was recusing from this item because it was her personal residence. She also stated that she was authorizing Patricia Blick to represent her on the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar stated that he was recusing from the item since he is in the area of influence. Both commissioners left the hearing room. Patricia Blick, 1702 N Palm, stated that she would be representing the applicant on this item. She stated that the addition of storm windows is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards #9 and #3. They will provide weatherization and preservation of the windows, some of which are early to the house. She continued that exterior storms are not prohibited in the guidelines and that the applicant will caulk the windows to make them less obvious. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russel stated that they should be caulked and not screwed. She stated that caulking them in place would be acceptable. A motion was made to approve this item as amended by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Frederick), and 2 recusals (McSwain and Pekar). Chair Holder and Commissioner Hodge voted for the item because it adhered to the guidelines, Commissioner Jones stated that it adhered to the Guidelines as per page 14 of the guidelines and Vice Chair Russell sated it adhered to the guidelines since they will not be screwed in place. After Commissioner McSwain returned to the room, Chair Holder asked her if she was aware that since there were five or less commissioners there that she could have deferred the item for one month. She stated that she was aware of that and she chose to go ahead with the items. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff reported the sign for Midtown Properties was still an issue and had not been removed yet. Certificates of Compliance No Certificates of compliance were signed during the last month. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:15 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date Page 29 of 29