Loading...
HDC_04 09 2007DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 9, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Susan Bell Marshall Peters Members Absent: Kay Tatum City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Tony Bozynski Citizens Present: Boyd Maher, AHPP Teressa Murphy Jay Core II. Finding of a Quorum Quorum was present being five (5) in number. III. Approval of Minutes a. March 12, 2007 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters to approve the minutes as corrected and was seconded by Commissioner Susan Bell. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Wesley Walls). IV. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. 1016/1018 Rock Street b. 316 East 11th Street DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: 501 371-4790 Fax: 501 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A DATE: April 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core ADDRESS: 1016/1018 Rock Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1016/1018 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 8 Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 1018 Rock Street is a ca. 1890's residence and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Local significance Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people Location of Project of social prominence. 1988 survey states that it is a "Vernacular Cottage ". This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the south side. A six feet wood dog -ear top fence is requested. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: None of record. 2 1016/1018 Rock Street 1016/1018 Rock Street PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 6' tall wood fence to match the existing fence on the property on the east, north and west sides of the property. The fence will be placed on the southern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the two houses at 1016 and 1018 Rock Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT Sketch for both applications AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. The fence would meet with the gate that is at the front fagade of the house. The gate section spanned between the two buildings (1016 and 1020 Rock Street). To make the six -foot section start at the halfway point of the building would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. 3 COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. When the building at 1020 Rock Street will be demolished, there will be gaps in the fence. 1016/1018 Rock Street are rental properties for the Cores and the request is to provide fencing for the tenants. He continued by reading a part of the fencing section of page 66 of the Guidelines. He referenced photos in the staff report and explained how the application differed from the guidelines. Chair Newbern asked if there was any record of the fence that is parallel to Rock Street spanning from 1016/1018 to 1020 being approved by the commission. Mr. Minyard said that he could not find any record of it coming before the commission for a COA. There was a discussion on other approvals of fencing in the other item. Mr. Minyard stated that this item (No. One) was not required to go to the Board of Adjustment. He continued to state the recommendation of approval. Chair Newbern asked if the Commission had the option of asking the non - conforming fence be moved halfway back to where it should have been put. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked questions about a possible fence that runs east and west parallel to the 1020 Rock Street building. Mr. Minyard clarified that 1020 Rock Street building was built on the north and west property lines and that there was not a fence there. The 1020 Rock Street building serves as the fence for the neighboring properties. He noted that the existing fence is not part of the application. He stated the staff recommendation from the staff report. Mr. Minyard clarified for Commissioner Peters that the fence in this item was for the two rent houses to the north and that it would provide enclosure for pets or whatever. Commissioner Tatum also stated that the fence shown in the photos on page two of the staff report was the entrance to the house behind. Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve the item with staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. Commissioner Peters stated that the issue to him was that the fence that is there would not be allowed under the guidelines and that he would not want to adjoin a fence that was against the guidelines to another fence that was improper. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. A discussion occurred on whether to expunge or rescind the previous vote. Ms. Weldon checked the bylaws and found the provision for expunging the vote. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to expunge the previous vote. Commissioner Peters seconded and the motion to expunge was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Commissioner Peters summarized the application and his position of how the fence does not adhere to the guidelines. He continued that if the commission approved the fence abutting it, that they would in essence be approving the existing fence that had not been approved by the commission in the first place. Mr. Minyard stated that the fence is non - conforming to the guidelines but is not a non - conforming fence according 4 to the zoning code. It does not require a Board of Adjustment variance. Mr. Peters relayed comments from other property owners about how they have felt that they had been wronged concerning the height of fences in the district. They stated there needed to be more uniform and consistent. Chair Carolyn Newbern summarized the comments of staff recommendations that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to match the non - complying fence, Mr. Peters comments of what the commission should be considering is the proposed fence, and the guidelines state that the fence should be three feet tall to the midpoint of the house and then six feet tall thereafter. Ms. Weldon noted that since the applicant was not in attendance, that it was an option for the Commission to defer the item. The applicant could amend the application at that time. There was a discussion that the applicant would need to amend their application for the commission to vote on different heights of the fences. If the item was deferred, the applicant could amend their application at that later date. Ms. Weldon advised the commission that the commission could not amend their application. Mr. Peters made a motion to vote on the item as presented. It was not seconded. Mr. Minyard asked for a point of clarification from Ms. Weldon that if the application was denied and they came back with another application for a shorter fence, would that not be a substantially different application that could be filed within the one year limit? It was decided that a different height of fence was a significantly different application. Chair Newbern made the point that these questions asked are why the applicant needs to be present at the hearing. Chair Newbern stated that there are issues that need to be answered from the applicant. Commissioner Tatum asked if Mr. Minyard had been on the property. He answered that he had been by the property, but only on the sidewalks. She asked if the air condenser units were just on the other side of the fence. He stated that he did not know. She continued that the fence might be used to hide any ac units that were there. Commissioner Peters asked if all of the questions had been written down that was to be asked of the applicants. There was a discussion of how long a deferral can be granted. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer the application for one month for cause for additional information that was brought up in the meeting. Commission Bell seconded the motion. The questions that the commission would like answered are as follows: 1(Location of the air conditioner units in relation to 1020 Rock Street building, 2) Justification as to why the fencing cannot be built to the Guidelines specification of 3 feet high to the mid -point of the house and then six feet thereafter or starting with a six feet tall section at the midpoint of the house and how many feet of each type of fencing would be involved, 3) If existing six foot fence at the front facade of the house could be relocated at the midpoint of the house, 4) Photos of the interior of the courtyard area 5 (the area north of the 1020 north wall), 5) Which side of fence to be placed outwards, and 6) State reason for necessity of six foot fence instead of shorter fence. Commissioner Peters asked if Staff had permission to go on the property. Staff said no. Chair Newbern stated that the burden of proof should be on the applicants to justify any requests. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. There were no citizens present for this item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. STAFF UPDATE: April 2, 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its' recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. COMMISSION ACTION: Aril 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was 6 made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 7 February 9, 2007 Brian Minyard L. R.Historic Distict Commission Dept. of Planning and Dev 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 1016 Rock Street - Fence Project Brian, The enclosed COA is to add an additional 50' of fence 6 foot high on the south property line of 1016 Rock. When the building is demolished it will leave an empty/exposed area. The fence will match the existing 6' dog-ear picket on the front/east, north, and west sides of the property. Thanks, Barbara G. Core T ' CA TZ ajoc) "'J' 9 clu t ea 1,0 so clay Cover letter from applicant DEPARTMENT OF PLAN INGAND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501)371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: ?1.`l 1, Date of Public Hearing: __- day of 200 —at , p.m. 2. Address of Property: _ \Z &D s' ..�5�z 3. Legal i]esc*ion of Property , c 4 t'":r w. Property 5. Owner's Agent: (Phone&aY/E -mail) 6. Project Descriptxsn (owiticonap ps rosy beasdxt): 7. Estimated Cost of bmprorvwents:. 1 Sn S. Zoning Ci STICad t:; a Is �(he pfvposed Change a permitted nse7 Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent. ,..•tom. • OcnA, - (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 DATE: April 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B ADDRESS: 316 East 11th Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 316 East 11th Street. The property's legal description is the West 72' of Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. (The legal description of 1020 Rock is the East 68' of Lot 7, Block 45.) The building at 316 East 11th Street is a ca. 1900- 1910 Garage building and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District as stated in the 1988 Survey. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (1 being the highest and III being the lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Location of Project Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1978 Survey lists it as 1895 construction. This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the east side. An eight feet wood fence is requested with a style to be similar to the one already approved on the south side. 10 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: September 22, 2006, a Certificate of Compliance was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for replacement of wood garage door to match in profile, panels, and detailing of the original. August 4, 2005, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for renovations to 1020 Rock Street that included fencing between 1020 and 316 on the south property line. March 13, 2002, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for the addition of a potting shed addition to the rear of 316 E 11th Street. January 2, 1986, a COA was issued to Lester O. Gaines to modify the central garage door that was never implemented. 316 East 11th Street Front (South) Elevation 1020 Rock and 316 East 11th Street 316 East 11 Street potting shed on right 316 East 11th Street West elevation PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 8' tall wood fence to compliment the existing fence on the property on the south side of the property. The fence will be placed on the eastern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the structure at 316 East 11th Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. The new fence will be similar to the fence on the southern property line with the exception of the brick piers. The new fence will not have the brick piers. 11 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. This fence is on the east side property line of 316 E 11 th Street. The fence would meet with the fences at the north and south property lines that are already eight feet tall. To make this new section be six -foot tall would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. This item is on the Board of Adjustment's agenda for March 26, 2007. It has been filed because of the additional height of eight feet versus Existing fence on north property line of 316 E 11th the code maximum of six feet in height. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. He included an overview of the property ownership of the applicants. He continued to discuss previous application on the site for the previously approved fencing. The approved fence was for 8' wood fence with brick piers on the south property line and 8' without any piers on the north property line. The proposed fence is to be a wood fence without any brick piers to match the existing fence on the north property line. He noted that this item is going to the Board of Adjustment on March 26. The zoning code specifies a maximum of 6 feet tall for side fences, and this is proposed at 8 feet tall. This report and the minutes will be given to the staff of the Board of Adjustment for inclusion in their write up. He stated the staff recommendation of approval. Chair Carolyn Newbern remembered the previous application to the site and the plea for an 8' fence for security and to visually block the views. She continued that the 12 commission approved a fence that did not comply with the guidelines because of special circumstances. Mr. Minyard described the various fences (the height and location of them) and the height of the proposed fences. Commissioner Peters stated that with the building no longer there, he did not see the need for the additional height of the fence. (The building was approved for demolition in a separate COA on February 5, 2007.) He continued and referred to the guidelines that recommend having a shorter fence. He remembered that special considerations were given for the added height on the fence, but those conditions are no longer a factor and that he could not support the request for added height. He did not agree with approving another fence to match a fence that had been approved (for special considerations) against the guidelines. He stated that the commission should follow the guidelines or change the guidelines to be 8 feet. Mr. Minyard restated that the commission may approve items that do not comply with the guidelines for special circumstances. Keep your guidelines in consideration when you vote and it is the commissions" job to say if the special considerations necessitate an approval not in compliance with the guidelines. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that the applicant did reference other fences in the area at the earlier hearing. Commissioner Susan Bell stated that she could not support an eight -foot fence on a vacant lot. She continued that there were ways to join an eight and a six -foot fence that was aesthetically pleasing. There was a discussion that the vote was on the application as proposed, the commission could not change the application. Chair Newbern restated that it was a jumble of fence heights and that either way it went, there was going to be a joining of a six and an eight -foot fence one place or another. She restated the proposal with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peters stated that he could not vote for this in good conscience as presented and would ask for a deferment. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer for cause (for more information) for one month. He asked for clarification for the need for an eight -foot fence from the applicant. Commissioner Bell seconded. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Chair Newbern asked Staff to notify the Staff of the Board of Adjustment of the outcome of this meeting. Chair Newbern asked if the applicant needed to notify property owners again if it was deferred. Staff answered no. Ms. Weldon asked that the record show that no citizens were present for either item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. 13 STAFF UPDATE: April 2. 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its' recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. COMMISSION ACTION: April 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 14 February 9, 2007 Brian Minyard L.R: Historic District Commission Dept. of Planning and Dev 723 W. Markhwn St. Little. Rock, AR 72201 Re: 316 E. 11th - Fence Project Brian, The enclosed COA is to add an additional 50' of fence 8 foot bi.gh on the east property line of 316 E. 11th Street. The fence will be of 8' cedar in a board on board style as already approved and installed on the north properly line. This fence will replace the gap left by the de rnolished building. Thanks. Barbara G. Core Cover letter from applicant 15 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE RUCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 72' West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 FAx: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATIO FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date- 1. Date of Pub& Hearing:—day of 200 —at p.m. 2. Address afProperty: 3. Legal Dmription of — y4 f 4.'Prnnarty Owner S. Owner's Agent: .iPhoxse/Fax/E -mtti0 6. Project Description (3Wdki mI Pw =v be Addeo): Estimated Cast ui'improvements: S. Zoning Classification: _ Is the proposed change a pear tried use? Yes No 9. Signamit of Owner or Ageu.tL_ — -- (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 16 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: April 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Russell & Teressa Murphy ADDRESS: 920 Scott Street COA Fencing and Widow's Walk REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 920 Scott Street. The property's legal description is Lot 7, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (1 being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1988 survey shows it as a contributing structure named the Mendlebaum House, an 1870's residence. Location of Project The application is for fencing and a Widow's Walk. The first portion of the application is a picket fence on the front and side yard, both with street frontage on the south and east side of the house. The second portion of the application is a fence on the south side between the house and detached garage. It is a privacy fence with a 4'- gate. The third portion of the application is the installation of a widow's walk on the roof. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchanan for paving issues on 900, 908, 916, and 920 Scott Street. 17 View of house from southeast Existing east elevation Existing south elevation by garage Existing south elevation PROPOSAL: The first portion of the application is for a picket fence to be placed on the east (Scott Street) and south property lines (10th street) along the sidewalks. It would be across the entirety of the east property line (front of house) and twenty feet past the front corner of the house on the south property line. In the photo above labeled "Existing South Elevation" it is just to the left of the three tall windows on the right bottom floor of the building. The portion of the fence on the east side would have a double gate at the sidewalk. Each gate would have a slight arch to the top of the fence. The fence does go along the north property line from the Scott Street fence to the corner of the screened porch. There is a small gate at that location going to the north. The requested fence is 48" tall with wood pickets of 3 1/2" wide with a space of 1 1/2" between. The tops of the pickets will be as shown in the photo below and the finial will be the one on the left of the photo labeled "Fence Finials." The fence will be painted white. See full -page sketch for dashed line labeled Picket Fence. 18 Fence pickets shape Fence finial The second portion of the application is for a 6'-0" tall privacy fence at the rear of the house stretching form the house to the garage. It will be a typical dog -ear top fence of treated yellow pine with a walk gate installed. It will be placed to allow for two cars off street parking outside of the fenced area. The fence will be painted the trim color of the house or will be sealed with a sealant to retain the natural wood color. The jog in the fence on the west side is to place existing doors of the garage inside of the fenced area. See full-page sketch for dashed line labeled Privacy Fence. The third portion of the application is a widow's walk at the top of the structure near the front of the house. The widow's walk will approximately 14 x 22 feet on the top of the house. The railing and walk will resemble the one at 10th and Cumberland (photo below.) The railing will be painted to match the main body color of the house but with a glossy finish. House at 15th and Cumberland Detail of widow's walk 19 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines under Fences and Retaining Wall, the guidelines state: Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36') tall, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4) and set no farther apart than three inches (3`). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the house. Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. Page 62 of the guidelines under Alterations or additions to Historic Structures, the guidelines state: New alterations should be designed to respect the original design character of the building. Analyze the structure to determine which elements are essential to its character, considering mass, size, scale, and proportion to the lot. Don't try to make it appear older (or younger) in style than it really is. The genuine heritage of the District should be expressed. Portion One of this application (the picket fence in the front and side yard) meets the guidelines with the exception of the fence height. While the request is to prohibit persons crossing the yard, littering and loitering, a three foot fence to match the guidelines will provide this protection as well as a 42 or 48 inch fence would. Portion Two of this application (the privacy fence between the house and the garage) meets the guidelines with no exceptions. Portion Three of this application (the widows walk) meets the guidelines. Italianate homes of this era and earlier, often had towers and widow's walks. With this house having a flat roof, it is possible that one was there at one time. Staff does not think that it would be out of character to install one. 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 building permit for each stage. 4. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. 5. Submittal of final widow's walk and gate design to Staff. COMMISSION ACTION: April 9. 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. Mr. Minyard showed the color photos submitted by the applicant to the commission. He continued that the Staff recommendation should state approval of the fence within the guidelines. He stated 20 that the applicant, Teressa Murphy, was present. Notice has been sent to the neighboring property owners. Teressa Murphy stated that in Portion One of the application, she was asking for something higher than 36 ". She said that she had people walking in the front yard with traffic from and to the liquor store and the soup kitchen. There are also issues of people littering with cans, bottles, etc. She continued that she enjoyed gardening, and that the fence would allow her to have plantings in the front yard. While the 36" would define space and stop people from tromping through, she said that a higher fence may deter more littering and would like to ask for the extra height in the front. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked if the commission wanted to break the discussion into portions or discuss all of it at the same time. Commissioner Walls suggested that the applicant finish her presentation at this time. On Portion Two of the application, she stated that people walk through her back yard past her kitchen windows. Eventually, there will be a courtyard into the back and the fence would add more security and landscaping possibilities. On Portion Three, she stated that there was a widow's walk at one time. There is evidence that it was once there. The previous owner had sealed the hatch to the widow's walk area shut because of liability issues. She added that the widow's walk would look nice on the house. They would like to unseal the door and provide a safe railing for the walk. Commissioner Walls asked about the door going to the widow's walk. Mrs. Murphy answered she was not sure exactly how it operated, but they would find out if approved. No other citizens were present to comment on the application. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked the applicant if the widow's walk would be painted wood. The answer was yes. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked what it would look like. She responded that it would look like one in the picture (on page 18). Commissioner Peters asked if the details of the widow's walk would be part of Staff's approval. Chair Newbern said that was part of the recommendation. Mrs. Murphy noted that it would be painted to match the body color of the house. Chair Carolyn Newbern stated that more research should been done to find an appropriate style of widow's walk to match the Italianate style of the house. The one in the photo, as noted, was Colonial. She continued about if the finials on the corners of the fence would match the finials on the widow's walk. Mrs. Murphy was planning on that. It was decided that the commissioners would discuss each portion of the application separately. Portion One was to be first. 21 Chair Newbern said that the iron fence two doors to the north of the site appeared to be approximately 36" tall. Commissioner Peters said that the height of the fence would not deter trash and litter. The space between the pickets would allow trash to blow through. He continued that he knew the site and the problems with the traffic and other problems. He stated that he knew the problems of the applicant, but would vote for the 36" height. Commissioner Susan Bell agreed with the height of 36" as stated by Commissioner Peters. She did not think that an added 6" would make a difference. Commissioner Walls asked about the landscaping that was mentioned earlier. Mrs. Murphy responded that it would be roses, shrubs, etc. Chair Newbern asked the applicant to check on city codes of evergreens planted on the corner and continued on the thorny nature of roses that would detract trespassers. She felt that the 36" height was better. Chair Newbern asked if there is a fence on the north side at the rear of the property. Mrs. Murphy responded yes. She said it was in need of repair. It was similar to the proposed fence on the drive side (Portion 2). Staff advised her that she could add this now and not re- notify. He continued that this was probably one of those fine lines between repair and replace and suggested that she amend her application. Mrs. Murphy did amend her application to repair or replace the six feet fence on the north side. He explained that she would be limited to the six -foot height on the repair /replaced fence. Mr. Minyard explained the jog in the fence in Portion Two. Mrs. Murphy did not have any more comments. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, asked if the applicant was willing to amend her application from 42" in Portion One. Mrs. Murphy said that the pickets come in 48" tall, but can be cut off. She amended her application to be 36" tall for the front fence in Portion One. Commissioner Peters asked since there were three portions on this application, if there was one vote or three. Ms. Weldon stated that there would be one vote. Commissioner Peters made a motion to approve the application as amended with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. In summary: 1. Front Fence (Portion One) a. Pickets to be 36" tall with gothic points. b. Pickets to be 3 1/2" wide with a 1 1/2" spacing. c. Fence to be painted white. d. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the front gate prior to construction 22 e. Finials to be gothic as shown in application with one on each corner and one on each side of the gates. 2. Back privacy fence (Portion Two) a. Pickets to be 6' tall dog -ear top of treated yellow pine. b. Fence to be painted trim color of the house or coated with a sealant. 3. Widow's Walk (Portion Three) a. Walk to be approximately 14'x 22'. b. Final design to be approved by Staff prior to start of construction. 4. North property line fence in rear yard. (Added portion in meeting) a. Pickets to be 6' tall dog -ear top of treated yellow pine. b. Fence to be painted trim color of the house or coated with a sealant. Mr. Minyard clarified for the applicant what further information she needed to provide to Staff. She needed to provide a design for the gate design and final design for the widow's walk before installation. Staff will send her a letter containing the COA that she will need to get a permit for the fencing. Staff also apologized for the non - typical atmosphere of the earlier part of the meeting. 23 Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Russell and Teressa Murphy 920 S. Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Appendix A — Detailed Description of Projects Picket Fence: The front yard of the house (see Appendix B, photo 1) will be enclosed with a fence constructed on site of wood pickets 3 '' /a" in width, spaced 1 %x" apart. Because of a continuing problem with pedestrians crossing the yard, littering, and occasionally loitering, we would like the finished fence height to be 48 ". Of course, we will abide by whatever height will gain approval for the fence, but we feel very strongly that the fence should be no shorter than 42 ", and we would much prefer the 48" height. The fence will have hidden support posts except at the comers and on either side ofthe double gate, Those posts will be topped by decorative caps (See Appendix B, photo 2), The pickets themselves will took like the individual pickets on the panel in Appendix B; photo 3, but the fence will be constructed of individual pickets rather than prefabricated panels. The fence will have a double gate across the walkway which leads to the front door. The gate will be of the same height and constructed of the same wood pickets as the fence itself, and each gate will have a gently arched top. The fence will be painted white. The estimated cost for this project is $2,077.65 (see attached). Privacy Fence in Back: Because of ongoing trespassing issues, we now wish to move forward immediately with a project which we lead not intended to get to for a year or two. What we wish to do is to extend a stretch of 6' dog car privacy fence, constructed of treated yellow pine, across a portion of the driveway that runs the width of our lot behind the house. This fencing will not only solve the trespassing problem, providing more security for our family and reducing potential insurance liability issues, but it will also create fbT us a courtyard, or back yard space. The fence will be placed in such a way as to still allow off-street parking for two cars. (See sketch of project placement.) The fence will have a walking-width gate (as opposed to a drive-in gate). Since the fence will be installed in an area that is currently covered with asphalt, the installer will be core drilling the asphalt to place steel posts, and then attaching wood posts to the steel ones. At this time we do not intend to remove the asphalt from the interior of the 'courtyard'', instead using garden beds and large containers for planting. However, at some point we may wish to replace (or possibly cover over) the asphalt with either antique brick or paving stones. If approval is necessary for repaving a hidden area, wefwould like to obtain approval at this time if possible. This fence will either be painted the trim color of the house, or will be sealed with clear sealant to retain the natural wood color. Cover letter from applicant 24 Appendix A, page 2 Rear Privacy Fence, continued We do not yet have a photograph of this fence, but it is a standard product and we will obtain a photograph if necessary. The estimated cost for this project is $1,067.38 (see attached). Widow's Walk: We wish to refurbish the approx. 14' x 22' widow's walk on the top of our house (see Appendix B, photo 4). We would like for the railing around the widow's walk to resemble, as closely as possible, the widow's walk on the home at the southeast corner of l0a' and Cumberland (Appendix 13, photo 5). The railing will be painted to match the main body color of our house ( "Chalky Peach'), but with a glossier finish. This work will be performed by Robert Dial, who is unable to give an accurate labor cast at this time, due to the fact that he u ,p�}ssibly encounter repairs that will need to be performed. Mr. Dial has given us i a verbal materials estimate of $500-600 for materials including posts, railing, spindles, and hardware. Cover letter from applicant continued 25 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPLICATION PACKAGE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public HearinglM, of 17 2002at LOp.m. aeo 9 +� et,f 2. Address of Property-, • 3. Legp ti of arty:? � 4. Pry i7w ar arise dtlr ss, P#r e pxl: G 5. Owner's Agent: - (phonefFvJE -mail) l /` 6. Project cupuon [ dap 1P Jay > r wd a " 17 yr` ` ��L�.�fJ'T[� C 1 7. Estimated Cost of improvements: C 8. Zoning Classification: Aw, PGSed lrarige a amigtcd use -Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agee l AA (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 26 V. Other Matters a. Enforcement issues Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about a new fence that was going up at 519 East Eighth Street. He also asked about sending a letter to 420 East Ninth Street for air conditioners and bars on the windows on Eighth Street. Mr. Minyard noted COCs that were issued on Sixth Street for new roofs. b. Ordinance Revisions Demolitions were discussed between Debra Weldon, Brian Minyard, and Tony Bozynski as requested by Barbara Core. The discussion raised more issues than solved. Staff felt that this issue would take a lot of time and that the current version of the ordinance should not be held up going to the Board of Directors for their approval. Any changes to the ordinance about demolitions can be taken at a later date. Debra Weldon asked the commission if there were any issues with the ordinance. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked the staff to check on the capitalization of the phrase "Historic District Commission" in all instances and make it consistent. She continued that this gets the Commission in front of the Board of Directors once a year, last year it was the guideline, and this year the ordinance. Mr. Minyard stated that the version they have would be put into ordinance language with replacement of particular paragraphs, lines, etc. It will be more of a piecemeal change. Commissioner Susan Bell gave Staff some edits also. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to recommend the ordinance package to the Board of Directors for their approval. Commissioner Peters seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. C. Street toppers Brian Minyard announced that the street toppers had been installed and that there had been some positive input obtained from citizens. 37 were installed around the district. d. Bylaw revision Brian Minyard introduced the item and why it was important to look at amending the bylaws. After a brief discussion, it was decided to take this item up at the next meeting after Planning and Development and the Attorney's office had a chance to look at it more closely. e. CLG grant items Brian Minyard listed the items that were planned to be included in the grant application for the upcoming cycle: memberships, national trust attendance, camp training for one commissioner and the preservation plan. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the items. Commissioner Peters seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. f. Citizen Communication Commissioner Walls stated that he thought Mr. Core's actions were inappropriate. Commissioner Peters would like Staff to thank Mrs. Core in writing for asking the commission to look at the demolition issue in life and death situations. He continued to ask if Mr. Core could send his questions to the Commission in writing. Chair Newbern asked that Citizen Communication be placed on every agenda at the end of "Other Matters ". Debra Weldon said that the citizen communication was typically at the end of the meetings. Ms. Weldon stated that usually the time limits for Citizen Communication is a policy decision, not a bylaw issue. After a discussion about how many minutes each speaker would be allowed to speak, Commissioner Peters made a motion that in Citizen Communications, the citizens be instructed that it be limited to three minutes per speaker at the end of the meeting. Susan Bell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. g. Tour on last Saturday morning A tour of the MacArthur Park Heritage and Museum Trail was taken on April 7, 2007. Attending were Mayor Stodola, Director Dean Kumpuris, Jimmy Moses, Rett and Bobby Tucker, Brian Minyard, Cheri Nichols, Carolyn Newbern, Scott Carter, Sharon Priest, Page Wilson, and Marshall Peters. They walked the trail and discussed the route and issues facing it. h. Speaker in May Handouts were passed out about the possibility of a speaker in May. Discussion was held and the pros and cons of various speakers were discussed. This discussion is about a kick -off speaker for the preservation plan. This is not a selection committee for an RFQ. The consensus was to have the following speakers contacted in this order: Dan Carey, Veletta Lill, and Henry Gannet. i. Quapaw Quarter Presentation Mr. Minyard announced that on May 8, 2007, there will be presentations from Brian Minyard, Randy Jefferies of the Capitol Zoning District Commission, and Ralph Wilcox of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. The issues discussed will be national and local historic districts, the definition and work of the QQA, and what design overlays are. j. Board meeting tomorrow night Carolyn Newbern volunteered to go to the meeting to accept the proclamation of May being Preservation Month from the Board of Directors. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Walls and was seconded by Commissioner Tatum. The meeting ended at 6:28 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 29