Loading...
HDC_10 14 2019Page 1 of 9 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 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 14, 2019, 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 Lauren Frederick Amber Jones Robert Hodge Frances McSwain Members Absent: One Open Position City Attorney: Shawn Overton Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Paula G Stitz P Denise Larson Denise Ennett Ray Wittenberg Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve both the August 12, 2019 and the August 13, 2019 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. 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. Page 2 of 9 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: October 14, 2019 APPLICANT: Paula Stitz ADDRESS: 521 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2019-015 COA REQUEST: Fencing PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 521 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “that part of Fowler Block in Stevenson’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Begin at a point on the South line of East 6th Street, which is 80.0 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Fowler Block; thence West along the south line of East 6th Street 40.0’, thence south parallel with the West line of Sherman Street 150.0 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of East 6th Street 40.0 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of Sherman Street 150.0 feet to the point of beginning. This house was built between 1939 and 1950 according to the Sanborn maps. The 2006 survey form states: “This small structure located at the back of the site appears to be an ancillary structure of a now missing house. The front gabled half front porch simple designed structure draws from a simple folk Victorian style.” It is considered a "Non-contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for 55 feet of five f eet tall wood privacy fence along the western property line between the house and the back of the parking pad (A), 65 feet of five feet tall black coated chain link fence on the eastern property line between the house and the back of the parking pad (F), a 40 feet long section of fence from east to west immediately behind the parking pad that contains two 4’ wide five feet tall swing gates in black coated chain link (E) and one 12 foot wide five feet tall double gate at driveway entrance (C). All of the fences and gates in the Location of Project Page 3 of 9 application are proposed to be five feet tall. See sketch on page three of this report for location of fences and gates. The letters refer to the sketch. No changes are being proposed in fence sections B, C, and D except the new vehicle gate. The fence in section D was installed without a COA sometime between July 2014 and April 2016 according to Google street view. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Catherine Lyon for vinyl siding on the house and the addition of a driveway and parking pad. It is unclear when the current driveway gate and the fencing to the east were installed. The fence in section D was installed without a COA sometime between July 2014 and April 2016 according to Google street view. It is a 42” prefab black painted metal fence with a vine decorative accent on the top shown in the upper left photo on page 3. Existing north elevation of house Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application will be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance if approved as submitted. Sec. 36-516(e)(1)a Residential fence and wall standards of the Little Rock Municipal Code states: Between a required building setback line and a street right -of-way, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Subsection (7) states: Support columns or support posts shall be permitted to exceed the allowable fence or wall height by no more than two (2) feet, including any ornamental features. Support columns or support posts shall be a maximum width of two (2) feet. There shall be a minimum distance of seven-feet – six inches (7’-6”) between opposing faces of support columns or support posts which exceed the allowable fence or wall height, other than at gates or corners. This request for a five foot tall gate on the north property line will require approval at the Board of A djustment if approved as submitted. The Guidelines state that front yard fences should be three feet in height and rear yard privacy fences should start at the midpoint of the house. This property is unique in the fact that the house is set extremely far back on the lot so that almost the entirety of the yard is in the front yard. No survey has been provided to determine the rear yard measurements. To strictly adhere to the Guidelines would mean that the three feet tall fences would be significantly farther back on the lot than the neighbors would be required to do since their houses sit so much closer to the street. See sketch below. Page 4 of 9 The question arises as to what is the appropriate height for the district in relation to the guidelines. If the fences are evaluated as if they were fences that were installed and owned by each adjacent neighbor, the outcome would be different as their taller privacy fences would start midpoint of the house to the rear. There is a rational breaking point on the property that could serve as the effective dividing line between the three and five foot tall sections of the fence. There is a concrete parking pad in the front yard that is about thirty five feet back from the 6th Street right of way. There is proposed to be a five foot tall section of fencing labeled “E” in the sketch below along the southern line of this effectively dividing the yard into north and south sections. This could serve as the boundary of the differing height of the fences, keeping the dogs south of this line with five feet tall fencing, (sections A, E, and F) and all fencing to the north (C) to be three feet tall. The application is for a five feet tall vehicle gate in a three feet tall fence. This application is also for recognition of the fence in section D that was installed without a COA. It is shown in the photo to the upper left. No changes are proposed to fence sections B and D. The taller five feet tall fence is shown in red and the three feet tall fence is shown in blue. Mills House at 523 E 6th on left and applicant’s house in background on right of photo. The 42” prefab metal fence is visible in this photo. House at 519 E 6th on right and applicant’s house in background on left of photo. Sketch of fences showing parking pad to the upper left of the property. Sections are labeled A-F. Photo of existing drive gate looking south showing concrete parking area. Page 5 of 9 There are some remnants of historic fencing on the 6th Street side. The photo below shows the historic post and the 42” prefab fence installed behind. The historic fence sections are about 42” in height. There is one ornate post that should not be removed on the west side of the driveway. The new post of the drive gate should be installed to the east or the northwest of this post to allow for functional use of the new gates. The guidelines also state that chain link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. This request for chain link fence would definitely be visible from the street. While the argument has been made earlier about the unique siting of the house and the heights of the fences, this argument does not hold for the style and materials of the fences. Chain link fences visible from the street are not appropriate. Wood picket fences and decorative metal fences would be appropriate. March 2019 Google street view photo showing historic fence and 42” prefab fence installed immediately behind. Historic fence post with mailbox attached and drive gate with vine accent. Proposed wood privacy fence. Proposed black coated chain link fence. Page 6 of 9 Staff acknowledges the need for taller fencing is needed to maintain security, keep the dogs in the yard, and that this is a very unique situation with the house sitting so far back on the lot. Staff believes that the compromise on rear yard front yard dividing line could be that the southern line of the parking pad be treated for this lot as the breaking line for the differing height of fences with all five feet tall fences to the south of this line and all shorter fences to the north 6th Street side of the line as shown in red and blue sections in the sketch below. In opposition to what is filed, Staff believes that it would be appropriate for the property and the district to have a five feet tall wood fence as requested on the east and west property lines south of the parking pad (sections A and F). Currently on the west side, there is a five and three feet tall sections of wood fence on the west side and the 42” prefab metal fence on the east side. Staff believes it is appropriate to have a five feet tall metal fence (not chain link) running east-west on the south side of the parking pad (section E). An example of a suitable metal fencing can be found at 518 E 8th Street at the apartment complex. Staff also believes it to be appropriate to have a shorter metal fence in the “front yard” in sections B, C and D. On the 6th Street side (section C), the 42” prefab metal fence is already installed behind the historic 42” fence. This 42’ prefab metal fence that will be removed for the eastern 5’ privacy fence can be reinstalled on the eastern side Section B. This will put all metal fencing in the front yard section. The drive gates need to have more appropriate closing hardware installed and be installed at the lowest height possible. The following chart is provided to clarify the sections of fence. Fence Section Existing Proposed Staff recommendation A (rear west side) 5’ wood privacy / 3’ wood 5’ wood privacy 5’ wood privacy B (front west side) 3’ wood 3’ wood 42” prefab metal fence relocated from east side C (6th Street) Historic fence /prefab 42” Historic fence /5’ Historic fence /prefab 42” gates mounted at 46” chain link gates gates mounted at 46” D (front east side) 42” prefab metal fence 42” prefab metal 42” prefab metal fence fence E (center yard) no fence 5’ chain link fence 5’ metal fence (not chain link) F (rear east side) 42” prefab metal fence 5’ chain link fence 5’ wood privacy NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. Fence sections. Page 7 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Locations and heights of fences as noted in the table and sketch above 3. The post for the drive gates on 6th Street shall not require removal or relocation of the historic post. COMMISSION ACTION: September 9, 2019 A roll call was taken and three members were in attendance. Brian Minyard, Staff, explained to the commissioners present that two commissioners were on vacation, one was in the hospital, and the other responded that they would not be present when reached via telephone this morning. He did not anticipate any additional commissioners attending. It was announced by the Chair that no meeting would be held since there was not a quorum present. COMMISSION ACTION: October 14, 2019 Commissioner Lauren Frederick recused herself from the item and left the meeting at 5:30. Commissioner Frederick stated she had a conflict of interest with business interest in Gracie Mansion apartments which are located in the area of influence and received notice of the meeting. Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission including the proposal from the applicant and the recommendation from staff which varied from each other. The applicant originally amended her application to match Staff recommendation, but upon further discussion, amended it to the following. Section A (rear west side) to be a five foot tall wood privacy fence. Section B (front west side) to be the 42” prefab metal fence relocated from east side. Section C (6th Street side) to be a gate manufactured from the 42” prefab fence on site. Section D (front east side) to be the existing 42” prefab metal fence. Section E (center yard) to be a metal five foot fence not chain link. Section F (rear east side) to be metal five foot fence not chain link. The applicant acknowledged that she would comply with the conditions stated in the staff report concerning the historic post and the obtaining a building permit. Staff stated that they changed their recommendation to agree with the amended application. The motion was made by Vice Chair Russell to approve the application as amended with the three Staff recommendations with heights and locations as amended by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hodge and the motion passed with a vote of five ayes, 0 absent, 1 recusal (Frederick) and one open position. Mr. Minyard stated that he would be in touch with the applicant on the approval and that she needed to let him know what type of fence that they would propose for the “metal not chain link” fence. Page 8 of 9 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier. They included work at 702 E 8th and at 904 Rock for roofing, work at 1422 S Scott for porch repair and work at 1323 S Cumberland for siding repair. Guidelines Revision The committee met since the last hearing and is making headway on the revisions. A new version will be sent to the committee late this week for the upcoming meeting on October 24th. Preapplication Meetings (Design Review Committee) Staff reviewed the process and points of discussion that set up the meetings originally. There were various votes on different aspects, but Staff could not find a vote on the time limits. There is evidence that thirty minutes is not enough time for discussion on some items that are brought to the Design Review Committee. After discussion of either raising the time limit to forty five minutes or not having a time limit, the consensus was to not have a time limit for discussion. Staff will modify the applications to take a time limit statement out. Citizen Communication Denise Ennett thanked the commission for the work that they do protecting the historic buildings in Little Rock. Resolution There was a discussion on the proposed demolition of the Gay Oil Building. It was desired that the Commission draft a resolution to not support the demolition of this building. Other members voiced agreement. A resolution has no power to make the Board of Directors do anything, but would let the Board of Directors know of the opinion of the Commission. Commissioner McSwain asked if the staff remembered when there was a moratorium placed on demolitions. Mr. Minyard did not, but Mr. Overton remembered it. Commissioner McSwain asked if Staff could check into the status of that moratorium. Included in the “whereas” statements in the resolution should be statements from the Preservation Plan. It was discussed that the staff should look at what the resolution is called, either a Resolution, Proclamation, Advisory Opinion, etc. Staff stated that they would put together some language for the commission to approve. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:15 p.m. Page 9 of 9 Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date