Loading...
HDC_06 11 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, June 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Susan Bell (in at 5:25) Marshall Peters Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Boyd Maher, AHPP Missy McSwain, AHPP Terry Burruss Byl Harriel Page Wilson Randy Ripley II. Approval of Minutes May 14, 2007 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters to approve the minutes as amended and was seconded by Commissioner Kay Tatum. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness 1 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: May 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Terry Burruss, Terry Burruss Architects ADDRESS: 1011 McMath and 712 E 11th Street COA Demolish 1011 McMath and warehouse addition to 712 E 11th Street REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1011 McMath and 712 E 11th Street. The property's legal description is Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Block 5 Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The house at 1011 McMath Street is a non- contributing 1900's house with alterations, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 Survey lists it a vernacular cottage. The Bylites building at 712 E 11th street is known as the Hunter Methodist Church. According to the 1978 survey, it is a vernacular style building. The Location of Project west portion of the building is an addition that was added in the mid 1970's. The original portion of the building, to the east, is a Charles Thompson building, a classic revival structure. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I 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. This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to demolish the house at 1011 McMath Avenue. The second portion is the request to add an addition on the north side of the structure at 712 E 11th Street (at 1101 McMath), and new fencing to enclose the parking area. The third portion is the restoration of the porch on the south side of the building. This application will go to the Planning Commission because industrial uses are a Conditional Use Permit in UU zoning. 2 Existing west (front) elevation of 1011 McMath Existing south (side) elevation of 1011 McMath Existing west elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing east (alley) elevation of 1011 McMath 3 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 11, 1999, a COA was approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the restoration of building from storm damage and addition of overhead door on west wall of the red brick addition. On November 6, 1990, a COA was approved and issued to Byl Harrell for replacement of a metal awning with a fabric awning. On November 27, 1989, a COA was Existing west (front) elevation of 1007 McMath from approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the 1978 Survey paving of the west parking lot, and installation of an overhead door in the original church building. PROPOSAL: This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to demolish the house at 1011 McMath Avenue and the sidewalk leading to the house. A pin oak tree will be added on the site to replace the existing tree that will be damaged during construction. Poplars or junipers will be planted on the north side while burford hollies will be planted at the east and west ends of the building. The second portion of the request is to add a warehouse addition on the north side of the complex on the lot at 1101 McMath. This addition will connect with the original church structure and form a "U" shape building. The addition is approximately 30 feet tall and 30 feet wide on the McMath facade. On the alley side, the addition is 40 feet wide. Overall length east to west of the addition is 134 feet. New fencing to enclose the parking area (nine feet tall wood fence to match the other existing) is proposed along with a rolling gate on the west side of the lot. This addition is for additional warehouse space. The third portion of the request is the restoration of the porch on the south side of the original structure. The original Charles Thompson drawings have been researched and the porch will be recreated. Landscape: The streetscape /landscape of this block would be changed dramatically. Currently, from north to south, there is an oversized vacant lot; at 1007 McMath, the Gilmore Cottage, a 1899 Eastlake cottage on an oversized lot; the house at 1011 McMath; and then the Bylites complex. The two houses have typical front yard setbacks with grass and trees. The parking for 1007 McMath is a ribbon drive and has been overgrown. The parking at 1011 McMath is indiscernible where it used to be. The building was last used for housing out of town actors /interns at the Repertory Theatre. The Bylites building has a parking lot on the northwest portion of the site along with a nine-foot tall privacy fence near the front property line. While the new building would be 4 set back 22 feet from the west property line, the proposed nine foot tall fence and rolling wood gate would be approximately five feet off of the property line. Environment: After the construction of the 1 -30 Freeway through this part of town, the neighborhood changed from single family houses with public uses (church, school and hospital) to the combination of commercial, multi family and single family uses it is today. The area has lost five single - family houses since the 1988 survey including the City Hospital that was located in an English Revival style house. Later construction includes the Waffle House -- 1960's, 2 apartment buildings on 10th -- 1960's, and the Pizza Hut in the 1970's. The addition to the applicant's structure was made in the mid 1970's. The three remaining single family homes in the area are: 923 McMath — a 1910's residence with alterations; 1007 McMath, a 1890's Eastlake residence; and 1011 McMath — a 1900's residence with alterations. These three are fairly close to each other, close enough to get a sense of what the neighborhood used to be and establish the rhythm of the street which would have been similar to other sections of the district. Footprint: The footprint of the new warehouse addition is not totally foreign to the neighborhood. This are of MacArthur Park historic district does have larger footprint buildings, namely the School of Law, a 1910's structure, and the new dorm building across the alley from this structure. The church itself (the applicant's building) is the third largest building in the area. The dorm building is approximately 13,000 square feet footprint and the proposed footprint of the property would be slightly smaller. Although, with the nine foot tall wood privacy fence / rolling gate and the smaller setbacks, the footprint could be perceived as even larger. Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat. There are other flat roofs in the immediate vicinity: The new dorm building to the east, the existing church building, and the law school building. These buildings are taller and larger footprint than the proposed structure. These flat roofs are also farther away from single - family pitched roof houses than the proposed addition. Envelope: The building mass would be perceived much larger than the current structures. While the original church is two stories with a raised basement, the addition is within four feet of the top of the cornice on the original church. The pitched roof on the 1970's addition is the same height as the original church, but appears shorter because of the gable end. This addition at 30 feet wide and just over 30 feet tall will appear to loom over the neighboring house at 1007. Skin: The proposed addition is made of EIFS (drvyit). This material has not been used in the area. The bottom band of the building on the east, north and west sides will be of split face block in a band that corresponds with the watercourse banding on the original church. The block will be medium brown color with a gray -beige drvyit. Most commercial and multi - family buildings in the area are of brick while the single - family 5 houses are of wood. The proposed addition does have "window relief' ornamentation on the east, west and north elevation. This consists of a sunken panel effect of the same color of EIFS that will give shadow and texture to the facades. The proposed addition does mirror a portion of the cornice of the original church and brings that cornice around the proposed addition. That cornice would also be made of EIFS. Holes: The proposed building does not have any windows. There are three doors on the south side of the building, three pedestrian doors (one on the alley side) and one overhead door midway on the building at the loading dock. The doors will not be visible if the rolling wood gate is closed. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines state: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape: The overall rectangular box shape of the warehouse addition is not compatible with the residential structure to the north (1007 McMath) with its porches, dormers, and irregular plan. 2. Scale (height and width): The height of the warehouse addition is approximately 30 feet in height. While this is approximately the same height at the ridgeline of the house at 1007 and the cornice line of the original church, the length and depth of the proposed addition will make the scale overwhelming. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a flat roof that is similar to the original church, dorm building, gas station, and law school. The 1960's apartments have a mansard roof. 4. Orientation to the street: The width of the warehouse addition is very similar to the width of the existing house at 1011 McMath. 5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: There are no entrances, windows, porches, or divisional bays proposed for the exterior of the building to make it pedestrian friendly. There are "window relief' ornamentation on the east, north and west elevations of the building. These will be recessed panels in the EIFS to echo the window pattern on the east elevation of the original church. See the East Elevation on page A2.0. These panels would give some ornamentation to the west and north elevations of the addition. 6. Foundation height: The new building will have a raised foundation that is four feet above finished grade. The original church has a first floor of about eight feet above grade and the 1970's addition was built on grade. The house at 1007 has a raised foundation of approximately 24 inches. On the western face (McMath Street facade), the raised foundation will be much higher than the house at 1007. 6 7. Floor to ceiling height: The floor to ceiling height is similar to the original church. However, with no distinction between upper and lower floors on the exterior of the building, it appears to be a one -story building. 8. Porch height and depth: There is not a porch on this building. The Loading dock is 4 feet off the ground, but is inside the parking area and does not relate to the street. 9. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if frames – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The EIFS on the warehouse addition is a new material for the neighborhood. The existing buildings are brick and stucco; the house at 1007 is wood. 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The texture of the warehouse addition has one thing in common with the original church. The "window relief' details are the width of one of the original windows, but about one and one half times the height, from the bottom of the first floor window to the top of the second floor window. 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): While the footprint of the warehouse addition could be viewed as a mirror image of the 1970's sanctuary addition, the new warehouse addition dwarfs the house at 1007 McMath in height and bulk. Demolition: The Guidelines state: "Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the building is compatible with the district's architectural character in regards to style, period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a "contributing" historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status." The applicant has not given any information in the application for justification for removing this house other than the fact that they wish to enlarge their facilities. 7 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: May 14, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff report as presented in the agenda. He showed blueprints of the original porch to the commission. He stated the recommendation of denial. It was noted for the record that legal notification requirements have been met. Byl Harriell, the owner of Bylites, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he had owned the company for 17 years and the idea for the expansion was to add storage. He wanted all of his operation in one place; he currently has storage off site. He continued that he thought the addition would improve the look of the space. He spoke of the addition to the church (the red brick portion) was made in the 1960's instead of the 1970's as the Staff report states. He commented that he wanted to paint the exterior of the red brick addition and to pave the parking lot, and redo the sidewalks. The topic of discussion turned to the demolition of the house at 1011 McMath. Mr. Harriell said that he would be happy to give the house to anyone that would be willing to take it. Chair Carolyn Newbern stated for the record that she knew Byl Harriell but does not have any financial interest in this application. Terry Burruss, representing the applicant, said that he was trying to maximize the area available with the new building. He commented that the business was a fixture in the neighborhood and that they started the process by looking for other available sites. With the acquisition of the next -door lot, they could build on to the existing facility and blend with this small area of MacArthur Park. He continued that this part of MacArthur Park is different from the rest of MacArthur Park and that this expansion would not be appropriate north of 9th Street. With the existing vegetation, it is impossible to see the facility when coming from the north. Mr. Burruss continued that they looked at the heights of the existing and proposed structures. The height is similar to the church height, the addition, and the house to the north. He stated that it had EIFS on the top part of the addition, landscaping on the north side of the property (junipers) to break up the mass. He said that they felt it was a good approach to meet the client's needs and the possible development to the north. Mr. Burruss said that he had served on the mansion area advisory committee for 10 years. Mr. Burruss reviewed the area that the new development was going into: the Pizza Hut, the Shell Station, the Chinese restaurant, the mansard roof apartments, etc. He said that he did not feel that the area would be single family, but would probably be multi 8 family and multi story. He continued that the streetscape had changed with the addition of the commercial structures. Mr. Burruss said that maybe the house could be relocated to another location. Also, that the front of the building could be pulled back to the line of the house next door and possibly save the tree. He proposed the split face block for the base of the building because he did not think that a third color of brick on the building would be appropriate. He could not get a brick color to match the original church. He wanted the addition to be muted. They tried to match the cornice of the new addition with the cornice of the old building. Chair Newbern asked if there were any citizens to speak on the application. Page Wilson stated that he owned three lots abutting to the north of this application. He expressed that the zoning of the land was UU Urban Use zoning. He continued that UU zoning is about density and mixed use. He stated that the area is not so much of a neighborhood anymore. While it is mixed use, it is not designed as such. He supports the application, density, and diversity in the area. Mr. Minyard stated that the application is on the Planning Commission Agenda for a Conditional Use Permit on June 7th. He sated that the property is zoned UU and that a industrial use requires a CUP. The expansion of the applicant's "grandfathered" business triggered the CUP hearing. Chair Newbern commented that the three portions of the application make it more difficult. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked that Staff separate all the items next time on separate applications in the future. Chair Newbern asked if the commission would talk about the portions of the application separately. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked a question about the location of the structure and which elevation went where. There was a discussion and the question was answered. Mr. Burruss commented that the addition was seven feet off the side property line and that landscaping would be installed to break up the mass of the building on its north side. Commissioner Susan Bell asked if the language of the application would be amended. Staff answered that the application could be amended and the vote would be based on that amendment. Mr. Walls commented on displacing the structure and what the net benefit to the neighborhood would be. The new addition relates to the church. It is a warehouse with no windows. He continued that the lack of windows bothered him. Natural light can save on electricity. He continued that the relation to 1007 is a concern, but the windows would improve that application. 9 Mr. Harriel was concerned about security and asked about burglar bars. Mr. Minyard stated that the guidelines state "Security bars should not be visible from the street." Mr. Burruss added the windows are 10' off the ground. The windows on the building could help the scale. Chair Newbern added that a security system could help. She continued that she had a problem with the lack of windows and the drvyit finish. Real stucco finish could be better. Mr. Peters said that the security bars should not be visible from the street but could be inside the windows. He was concerned about the relocation of the house. Mr. Minyard added that there is an option of glass with wire embedded in it to add to the security. Mr. Peters added that he would like to see windows in the addition. Mr. Burruss stated that the original church has real stucco on the west facade and that they could substitute real stucco on the addition. The addition of more expansion joints could make the addition better. They could also substitute brick instead of the split face block. Mr. Walls stated that he preferred the regular gray color in split face block instead of the other colors. Chair Newbern brought up the subject of the wood fence height and that it is not within the guidelines. Mr. Walls added that it matched the existing fence to the south. Mr. Walls asked what the purpose of the fence was. Mr. Harriel added that the fence masks a loading door. Mr. Burruss continued that the fence is actually a gate the serves the loading door beyond. It is not possible to landscape in front of the gate, because it would not open. He added that the driveway throat width is currently very wide and that the driveway will be reduced in width along with the additional fencing. The fence will shield the parking and loading areas. Mr. Walls asked what material the fence is. Mr. Burruss answered that it will be a wood fence, probably painted cedar. Mr. Walls commented about moving the fence and if it would improve use of the structure. Mr. Walls commented about the setback of the west facade of the addition. He wanted it to relate to the building at 1007. Mr. Burruss said he could do that. Chair Newbern asked if the dotted line was representational of the house location. She also asked the building be set back to the line of the old house. There was a discussion about the two loading doors on the dock in the northeast corner of the loading parking area. Mr. Peters stated that he was not "getting" the mass of the building addition. Mr. Walls commented that it was the same relation now with the church and 1011 as it is proposed to be with 1007 and the addition. Mr. Peters continued that landscaping would not hide the building. 10 Mr. Walls commented on the original porch restoration. Mr. Burruss stated that they would follow the original blueprints on the restoration. Chair Newbern asked if this was going to be the primary entrance to the building. The answer was yes. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lights and signage. Mr. Harriell stated that there would be security lights that will light the interior parking and loading areas at night. Mr. Burruss added that there would be one light on the door that faces the alleyway. Chair Newbern asked if the columns on the porch restoration would be wood. Yes was the answer. Mr. Peters commented on a typo on page 19 of the report. In the Proposal Section, second paragraph, the number should be 1011 instead of 1101. Mr. Peters continued to summarize the changes that would need to be made to the application: moving the west fagade back, house to be moved instead of demolishing, adding windows, changing EIFS to stucco, maintaining the hedgerow on the north side, and the fence height to be six feet.. Chair Newbern added landscaping to the list. Mr. Walls said that he could understand the desire for the nine-foot fence, but the scale has an impact on the pedestrians. He continued that the added windows are more important on the east and west side, the west being more important. The building needs quality windows, clad windows, to mimic the style of the older windows. Maybe leaving a recess between the upper and lower windows would be good. Scale is appropriate, it is lower than the church, and it feels comfortable. Chair Newbern commented other procedural issues: either approve, approve as amended, defer or deny. A discussion was held on amending the application in the meeting with several items being amended with Staff approving the changes at later date when that applicant brings in the paperwork. Mr. Minyard stated that he did not have a problem on small changes to an application, but these changes were more than that. He did not feel comfortable with the scope of the changes and would prefer that the applicant defer to the next meeting and resubmit to include all of the proposed changes. Ms. Bell asked about if the application was denied verses deferred. The answer was that the application would have to re- notify and reapply if denied whereas the deferral would not require that. A discussion was held as to whether the house was structurally sound to move or not. Mr. Harriel stated that he would give the house to whoever wanted to move it. Mr. Wilson said that it might be financially unfeasible to move it. It takes a lot of time and money to do it. The commission then formalized a list of items to be considered in the deferral and resubmittal of the drawings. 1. Change demolition of the structure to a good faith effort to relocate the structure. 11 2. Footprint of addition to be moved back to the east to existing building location. 3. Add windows to more closely relate to the original church structure. 4. Substitute stucco for EIFS. The split face block will be in unfinished gray color. 5. Fence to be six feet tall 6. Hedgerow on north side to remain. 7. Clarify parking lot intent (paving and drainage issues) There was a request for a color rendering of the proposal. Mr. Harriel asked what the definition of good faith was. There was a discussion that included notices in the newspaper, sign on the property, notifying the CDC's into the area, notifying the DNA website, etc. It was decided that the applicant would provide information of how they have or will market the house at the next meeting and the commission will decide if it is a good faith effort. Mr. Walls stated that it was not an issue of the house was given away or not, either way the house leaves the site. Mr. Peters commented that it did matter, protection for the integrity of MacArthur Park was important and that he would prefer that the house be moved. Mr. Peters made a motion to defer for additional information to include addressing the seven concerns. Mr. Walls seconded. Mr. Burruss said that he has sat as a member of the Board of Adjustment and on the Mansion Advisory Committee and the he complimented the commission for talking with him and giving them lots of information to consider. The motion to defer was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. STAFF UPDATE: June 4. 2007 The applicant supplied additional documents to Staff on May 30, 2007 that addressed the concerns of the Commission as outlines in the hearing of May 14, 2007. On those concerns: 1. Good faith effort to relocate — The applicant will expound on what efforts have taken place to relocate the structure at the June hearing. 2. Setback changes — The west facade of the addition has been moved to the location of the existing house which can result in saving the existing tree. 3. Window units — Six metal clad wood windows (6 over 1) have been added to the west facade, on the north facade, the six window reliefs have been converted to 12 window reliefs, and five window reliefs have been modified to eight on the east facade (alley facade) 4. EIFS to Stucco — the exterior of the building has been changed to stucco. The expansion lines have been shown on the facade. 5. Wood fence modifications — The new and existing fence will be six feet tall. The current landscape ordinance provides that the fence surrounding a dumpster be two feet higher than the dumpster for screening. If the dumpster is more than six 12 feet tall, the dumpster could show over the fence. Options are 1) let the top of the dumpster show, 2) add plantings similar to the plantings on the north property line to screen the dumpster, of 3) leave part of the fence at nine feet tall. 6. Hedge row — the hedge row will be retained as possible. 7. Parking area — The parking area will be paved. The guidelines state that concrete or gravel is appropriate while asphalt, aggregate or brick is not. 8. The red brick on the church addition will not be painted at this time. 9. The existing night light will remain. No new exterior lighting will be added at this time. 10. The location of the dumpster is noted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Commission for the overall appearance and design of the structure, Staff does not support the demolition of the residential unit and does not support the expansion of the industrial use in this area. COMMISSION ACTION: June 11. 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff Update and the revised recommendations. Mr. Minyard asked questions of the applicant about the dumpster and the paving. Terry Burruss, the architect for the project, stated that dumpster was 42" tall, so that a six foot fence would screen it properly. The next size up on the dumpster is 54 inches tall, which would also be screened by the six foot fence. The paving for the parking lot will be concrete. Mr. Minyard restated the Staff recommendation of denial. Commissioner Peters asked if the color rendering was available to view this evening. Mr. Burruss continued that they preferred to match the existing color of the building's stucco when applying the new stucco. He also said that they would prefer split face block on the bottom of the new building instead of brick. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked about any difference in the east and north side window reliefs. Mr. Burruss said that he added windowsills on the second floor. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if the cornice was stucco or EIFS. There was a discussion of the crispness of the details and if it would not be noticeable at that height if it were a different material. The consensus was to make the cornice EIFS with a fine grit sand finish the same color as the stucco. Commissioner Walls asked about the clad wood windows. Mr. Burruss said that they are operable and that they were single hung windows. Commissioner Walls recommended simulated divided lights on the windows. Commissioner Walls then asked if they had block on the bottom of the new building. Mr. Burruss said yes they had asked for split face block on the base of the new building. 13 The base color breaks the facade and they preferred integral color with color mortars that matched to block. Mr. Burruss said that they would work with Staff on the colors. Mr. Burruss noted that they had contacted the CDC's and had not had any responses. Mr. Byl Harriel said that he had sent more than 10 emails and had three responses to meet to move the house. Epperson had come by to see the house and said that they would have to cut the roof off to move it. Staff clarified that Epperson is the guy that moves houses. Susan Bell entered the meeting at 5:25. Chair Newbern asked if the commissioners had any additional questions. Commissioner Peters asked about the status of the survey and if the structure was contributing or not on the new survey. Mr. Minyard answered that the survey was not finished and Boyd Maher stated the state office designated if it was contributing or not. Page Wilson, adjacent property owner, said that he liked the applicant design and that he looked at the big picture of the area zoned as UU. He was glad to keep a business in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked Mr. Harriell what he would do if he were not approved. He answered that he would reapply, that he was not planning to leave the area. Commissioner Walls commented that he thinks that the applicant made a good faith effort to market the house for moving. Commissioner Peters asked what the price tag for moving the house was from Epperson. Mr. Harriell responded that it was from 17 -30 thousand not including utilities. Chair Newbern had questions of AHPP about any things that could be done so that housing stock could be saved. Mr. Maher said that it did not go anywhere in the latest legislative session. Commissioner Tatum commented about the structural soundness of the house. She continued that the age of the house was a factor in the decision of the demolition. Mr. Wilson asked what the percentage of contributing structures in the district was. Staff answered the low 70's. Mr. Harriell asked how many 1940's cottages were in the district. Staff answered "very few ". Commissioner Bell stated that she liked the design but does not like the demolition. She appreciates the good faith effort to find a person to move house would be supportive of the application. Mr. Burruss commented that the CDC's were not as interested into he house since they had to crunch numbers and make them work. 14 A discussion about postponing the demolition for sixty days from today's date, the moving of the structure before that date and the ramifications for the applicant was held. The discussion included sixty days or ninety days from approval. Ms. Weldon stated that with the ordinance, that any application deferred ninety days becomes approved. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve as submitted with clarifications: a good faith effort to relocate house, windows with simulated divided lites, EIFS on parapet (cornice) to maximize depth profile, six foot fencing, and concrete paving in parking area. Commissioner Peters seconded the motion. Commissioner Peters asked that the applicant provide to Staff proof of their good faith effort after ninety days of the hearing. Staff clarified that at the last meeting it was decided that at this meeting, it would be determined if a good faith effort had been met. Staff contended that a good faith effort had been met. Commissioner Peters asked for a sixty day moratorium from today's meeting to move the house before it was demolished. Staff proposed that the applicant could not get a demolition permit until he pulled his building permit, which would hold off the demolition of the maximum amount of time. The motion was amended to state that demolition cannot happen until sixty days from today's date but could be moved on an earlier date. (Staff comment: Sixty days is August 10, 2007.) The amendment to the motion was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. The vote to approve the application as amended with conditions was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. Chair Newbern made a statement for the record that she understood the recommendation of denial from Staff. She did say that they made design changes and keeping the business in the area was important. Commissioner Tatum stated that neighbor support was also important. 15 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: July 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Randy Ripley, Terranova Properties, LLC ADDRESS: 1421 Cumberland Street COA Infill duplex - two family structure REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1421 Cumberland Street. The property's legal description is Lot 6, Block 49 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This lot is currently vacant while a wood privacy fence divides the lot. The Proposal is to build a duplex that will be sold for owner occupied housing. This lot is at the northeast corner of 15th and Cumberland Streets. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 23, 2001, a COA was approved and issued to Myra Ash for demolition of the structure located at Location of Project 1423 Cumberland Street. The house was the subject of the 1999 tornado and was in disrepair before according to the letter from the applicant. ANALYSIS: Landscape: The foundation will be approximately 18" in height on the front porch elevation with slightly higher on the rear elevation. The driveway will be sloped up to meet the floor level of the house; no steps are desired between the garage and the house. 16 View of lot from Cumberland View from east Environment: The current structures to the north of this lot are three multi-family and one single - family structure. Across Cumberland Street is the Eastside Auditorium that is being converted into apartments. Across 15th street, out of the district, is a nursing home and three single family detached houses that are currently under construction. See photos at end of report. Footprint: The footprint of the building will be similar, yet somewhat larger, to the other residential structures on the block face. The block face is defined as all of the houses facing one street in a particular block, in this instance, all of the houses on the east side of Cumberland between 14th and 15th Streets. This duplex has attached garages that add 880 square feet to the structure. If the garages are subtracted from the square footage, the footprint is the same as the house to the north. The setback will be slightly less than the average front setback of the house on the block face. This setback at 15 feet is the minimum setback for R -4A zoning. The rear setback is 25 feet, which is the minimum for this zoning district. The duplex will have five-foot setbacks on the side, the minimum required. 15th Street Elevation 17 Roof: The roof will be architectural asphalt shingles on a gable -on -hip roof. Both the second floor roof and the roof over the garage /master bedroom wings will be a gable - on -hip roof. A gabled roof will connect the two. The front porch roof will be a shed roof covered with standing seam metal roof. Envelope: The western 30 feet of the house will be two - stories while the balance of the house to the east will be one story. See 15th Street elevation above. Cumberland (front) elevation Alley (rear) elevation Skin: The siding on the house will be Hardie -board lap siding with six inch Hardiplank trim boards on the vertical edges. The stories will be delineated with an approximate 12" horizontal ban of trim board. On the side and rear elevations of the two story portion, there is a detail made of Hardie trim to visually separate the two floors. There is a garden court (outdoor patio) midway along the north and south elevations of the building. The garden court will have a cedar arbor above with a outdoor fireplace. The outdoor fireplace will be stained split face block for the exterior facing the street. The garden court will be enclosed with an iron fence proposed to have a maximum height of five feet. This five feet height on the south side (with street frontage) will require a Board of Adjustment variance. The maximum is four feet for a fence with street frontage. The fence on the north side may be up to six feet in accordance with zoning regulations and Guidelines. Holes: The windows on the structure will be two over one windows varying in size from 3'-0 "x5'-0" on the first floor, 2'- 8 "x4'-0" on the second floor in the front and 3'x5' on the second floor on the sides. The windows will be all-vinyl windows. 18 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 12. Shape: The shape of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings. 13. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is similar to the other houses on that block face. All of the other houses are two story houses with gabled roofs. 14. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a 8/12 roof on the second floor portion and a 6/12 on the first floor portion on the rear of the structure. The front porch has a 4/12 pitch. The pitches are similar or slightly less pitch than the adjacent residential structures. 15. Orientation to the street: The entrance to the structure is facing Cumberland Street as is the adjacent residential structures in the block face. 16. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays: This proposed building is compatible with the surrounding structures. The garage area on the eastern end of the building has a blank wall. 17. Foundation height: The new building will have a raised foundation of approximately 18 inches with slightly higher in the rear which is compatible with the adjacent residential structures in the block face 18. Floor to ceiling height: The height of the first floor is either 9' or 10' feet and the second floor height is 8 feet. 19. Porch height and depth: The front porch is eight feet deep and is the width of the structure. This is compatible with the adjacent residential structures in the block face 20. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if frames – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The basic siding material is cement fiber -board lap siding with the same material for trim pieces. The foundation will be of split face block. 21. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The drawings show six inch vertical trim boards on the corners and around the windows with an approximate 12" horizontal band separating the first and second floors. 22. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The setback of the proposed building is similar to the other residential structures in the block face. Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days of approval. 2. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit. 3. Addition of additional windows and or siding variation /trim details on 15th Street elevation in area of garage and master bedroom and bath. 4. Iron fence at Garden Court facing 15th Street to be substituted with wood picket fence to be 4' -0" in height maximum. 5. Confirm ceiling height on first floor. COMMISSION ACTION: June 11, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short statement that the legal requirements had not been met concerning the application. A discussion was held and it was agreed upon that the applicant would re- notify the property owners with the July hearing date. A motion to defer for one month for lack of notice and to allow applicant to serve proper notice was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Commissioner Susan Bell and was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 20 IV. Other Matters a. Enforcement updates: Staff noted that he was able to stop a couple of issues during the month. A package is being put together to train the new officers. A stop work order has been issued on 1419 Cumberland Street; however there has not been a lot of work done in the last year on the house. Commissioners noted activity at 308 Daisy Bates Drive, 1419 Cumberland Street and Dumpster on Cumberland in the 900 block is interior only. Commissioner Tatum asked about 1020 Rock Street has a dumpster. Staff asked a question about how long a temporary fence could be up before it became a permanent fence. b. Bylaw revision has not been prepared at this time. c. Preservation Plan strategy: The Commission wanted Staff to talk with Mayor Stodola to set up a committee for the city wide task force for the preservation plan. d. Dunbar Survey has had the RFQ posted according to Susan Bell. Chair Newbern asked that the CTAC folks be notified on it. e. Chair Newbern spoke of the MacArthur Park groups press release of the Museum Art and Heritage Trail press conference and the fundraiser. f. Staff noted the new commissioner was Julie Weidower. g. Birthday Bash of the 25th year of MacArthur Park to be coordinated with Roger Williams of the QQA. h. Citizen Communication — none. i. Staff and fellow commissioners commented on Carolyn Newbern's tenure on the commission and thanked her for her time and effort. She commented that a lot of work has been done in her tenure and that she felt that the commission was on firmer footing at this time than before. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Walls and was seconded by Commissioner Walls. The meeting ended at 6:37 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 21