Loading...
HDC_07 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, July 9, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Kay Tatum Wesley Walls Susan Bell Julie Weidower Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Randy Ripley Tanya Robinson John fisher Chris Vanlandingham Tommy Braswell HL Moody Alisia Ferguson II. Election of Chair and Vice Chair A motion was made to elect Marshall Peters to the position of Chair by Commissioner Wesley Walls. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes and 1 recusal (Peters). A motion was made to elect Wesley Walls to the position of Vice Chair by Commissioner Kay Tatum. Commissioner Julie Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes and 1 recusal (Tatum). 1 III. Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2007 with the correction of the date on page one. The motion was made by Commissioner Tatum and seconded by Vice Chairman Wesley Walls. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, and 1 recusal (Wiedower). 2 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: 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. 3 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 Llevation 4 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. L'umoenano (front) elevauon 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 an 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. 5 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: 1. Shape: The shape of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings. 2. 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. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have an 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. 4. Orientation to the street: The entrance to the structure is facing Cumberland Street as is the adjacent residential structures in the block face. 5. 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. 6. 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 7. Floor to ceiling height: The height of the first floor is either 9' or 10' feet and the second floor height is 8 feet. 8. 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 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 basic siding material is cement fiberboard lap siding with the same material for trim pieces. The foundation will be of split face block. 10. 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. 11. 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. 6 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. STAFF UPDATE: June 26, 2007 Staff received copies of the notices that were sent on June 26, 2007, thirteen days before the hearing date. The requirement is 10 days. The applicant resubmitted drawings of the exterior of the structure. Changes include: 1) Windows on the garage /master bedroom wing. These windows are two sets of three ganged horizontal windows. The individual windows are 20" x 9 ". 2) Chimneys on the south and north fagade of the building that have lap siding exteriors to match the exterior of the structure. The chimney cones are a dark bronze cone shaped metal. 3) Slight modification in the central entry gable above the second floor on the west front fagade and trim below it. Brackets have been added to the structure under the soffit. The vent has been modified from a circular one to a diamond shaped vent. 4) The applicant also clarified that the ceiling heights on the first floor are 9 feet and the upper floor is 8 feet. The newly proposed windows on the garage /master bedroom wing are preferred over having a blank wall. The new houses that face 15th will look at this elevation from their front doors. The windows do give a sense of privacy while permitting light to enter the space. These windows also define this as a new structure in the neighborhood. The chimneys are in keeping with the neighborhood. Other houses on that blockface do have at least one chimney per structure. The lap siding on the chimneys define this structure as a new structure. 7 The newly revised gable is in keeping with other structures on the blockface. The vertical trim pieces break up the long expanse of siding on the second floor. The brackets could be interpreted as being to imitative of an earlier historic style. 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. Iron fence at Garden Court facing 15th Street to be substituted with wood picket fence to be 4'-0" in height maximum. 4. Remove brackets from second floor eaves. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item noting that the legal requirements for notification had been met. Vice Chairman Wesley Walls asked a question about the Staff recommendations about changing the materials of the fence. Brian Minyard, Staff, responded that we do not have pictorial evidence of the fence that was there before. A wood fence would provide more privacy. A five -foot fence would require a Board of Adjustment item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower commented that she had no problem with the metal fence. Commissioner Marshall Peters had a request for Staff to reiterate the guidelines on the height of fences. Mr. Minyard clarified the rules on height of fences as it relates to zoning. A fence with street frontage may only be four feet tall. Commissioner Susan Bell had a question on the trim pieces on the center wall. Mr. Minyard explained the trim pieces as architectural trim made of Hardiplank. Randy Ripley, the applicant, responded to the fence height. He prefers iron fencing at four feet but it does not give as much privacy. He will stay at four feet as the height of the fence. The fireplace was shown as split face block but would now prefer a rubbed concrete look, built out of cmu (common masonry units) with rubbed surface. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the fireplaces being interior versus exterior. Mr. Ripley not wanting flues, they are ventless fireplaces. The roofs needed details. Vice Chairman Walls commented that the modification looked good and Commissioner Wiedower said that it was a handsome project. Chairman Peters asked if there were color renderings. Mr. Ripley said no. Mr. Ripley addressed the diamond detailing on the south fagade of the house, he added details to the structure without trying to get too heavy. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she liked the window modifications. Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff if the commission could address color choice. The answer was no. Mr. Ripley said that it would probably not be possible to save the tree to the north. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the saving of trees was in our jurisdiction. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that it was not. Vice Chairman Kay Tatum commented that it was an attractive project. Commissioner Wiedower asked the fellow commissioners about the brackets on the second floor. Chairman Peters commented that he would bow to the architect on the committee for recommendation as to leave them on or remove them. Vice Chairman Walls respected Staff on its opinion and stated that he trusted the applicant on this matter. Mr. Ripley said the he wanted to break up the line more with the brackets. Commissioner Wiedower asked about scale of the brackets. Mr. Minyard asked if the brackets were a stock item or to be made custom. Mr. Ripley stated he did not know at this time. Vice Chairman Walls asked about the garage door material. Mr. Ripley stated that they would be painted panel doors. Vice Chairman Walls asked about brackets. Chairman Peters asked if there were any citizens here in support or opposition to this application. There were none. A motion was made and discussion was held. Staff revised its Staff Recommendation. Mr. Minyard read item 1 and 2 as distributed. 3. Iron Fence at Garden Court facing 15th street to be 4'-0" in height maximum. 4. Staff to approve final design of brackets on second floor eves. Commissioner Bell made a motion to approve the item with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion passed with 5 ayes. A discussion was held about the requiring of color renderings or perspectives from the applicant. It was discussed if this would be a hindrance to some applicants that do not employ architects or designers. 9 Revised 15th Street Elevation Revised Cumberland Street Front Elevation 10 May 11, 2007 Historic Planning Commission 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Commission Members: I have vacant lot at 1421 Cumberland Street in Little Rock under contract for new construction. My intent is to build a single family attached duplex in the lot currently zoned R -4. I am asking for a certificate of appropriateness for the attached elevations of this building Thank you ,yv>`l Randy Ripley Arbors Development, LLC Cover letter from applicant 11 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITHE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Madrhnn Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE ESS Application Date: 5-51111 On 1. Date of Public Hewing: -a day of % M" c_ 200 —'I—at �_ p.m. 2. Address of Property: 147—t G U lot h rl 3. Legal Description of Property: L o+ (' 61=9 q —A 4-0'"-,F L 5 ' *A-It ;swe , 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): f r-r a y°V a � r,�= —,i LL!�z 5. Owner's Agent: KAnJ4 ISpl&q Phoneft b. Project Description (adds ionA page„ may be added): Aye r�- WWA,4i wi 41. t At,.(&' � 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements. Iniap 8. Zoning Classification: r2- Is the pro sed change a permitted use? Zo No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent:_ (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 12 Photos of buildings along Cumberland Street: 1401 Cumberland Street 1405 Cumberland Street 1409 Cumberland Street 1415 Cumberland Street 13 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: Tonya Robinson ADDRESS: 509 East 7th Street COA The request is for approval of Painting brick REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 East 7th Street. The property's legal description is "the north 100 feet of Lot 1 Johnson Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the 1960s and it is a non - contributing structure, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists it as a vernacular cottage. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the Location of Project lowest) and Historical Significance of State significance. State historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people who made statewide contributions to politics, medicine, commerce, education, and the women's suffrage movement. The public buildings are, or have been, important gathering places. The request is for approval of painting the red brick on the structure to a Benjamin Moore "Ashley Gray" (taupe) color. The house has already been primed white and is the subject of an enforcement action. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the property. A COA was needed, but it was never filed. 14 Existing north elevation Existing west elevation Existing east elevation April 21, 2005 photo of north elevation WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines state on page 57 under IV. Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, B. Individual Building Elements, 5. Walls: Masonry walls of brick or stone should be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling. Professionals should perform the cleaning, using detergent cleansers or chemical agents. Care must be taken not to introduce moisture or chemicals into the building. Paint should not be removed if it is firmly attached to, and therefore protecting, the masonry surface. Brick should not be painted unless it is extremely mismatched from earlier alterations or cannot withstand weather. Repointing should be done with an original or historic compound, such as one part lime and two parts sand, which allows bricks to expand and contract. Portland cement or other hard mortar is not appropriate, because it can cause cracking or spalling. The appropriate 15 mortar should also match in color, depth, profile, raking, texture, and width. At the end of that Section the guidelines state: Choice of paint color on wood surfaces does not require approval of the LRHDC. However, a COA is required if painting stucco, brick, or concrete, etc. Twice in that section and once in that appendix in the Guideline Chart, does the guidelines state that brick should not be painted. The brick on the house was not mismatched from earlier alterations. The applicant has not provided Staff with information as to why the brick needs to be painted. It is noted in the cover letter that some mortar joints needed repair. Repair of the joints with a colored mortar would have rendered them less noticeable while maintaining the integrity of the brick. Removal of the overspray /drips from previous paint jobs could be handled as described below. Neither of these conditions would necessitate painting the brick. While some houses in the district are painted brick, it is not historically accurate to say that early ranch houses were painted brick. The current fad of painting of brick houses started approximately 15 years ago. Staff recommends the following conditions /solutions to remove the primer: 1. Pressure wash the surface of the brick with hot water with Staff in attendance to monitor the tests. Test clean a small patch of the brick starting with the lowest pressure available and increasing to a point where the paint is being removed. The volume of water, the controls on the pressure washer, the actual nozzle selected, and the distance of the nozzle from the wall will all have a factor on how much pressure is being applied. Choose the nozzle with the widest fan spray. Choose the lowest volume of water working up to the highest volume of water. Keep the nozzle at least 18 inches away from the brick at all times. If the pressure needed to remove the primer damages the brick, do not continue with this method of removing the primer. If this method removes 90% of the primer, this is the only step needed. Wash from the bottom of the wall up to the proceeding to the top of the building always keeping all surfaces wet below the area being cleaned. The rationale of this approach is based on the principle that dirty water or cleaning affluent dripping from cleaning in progress will leave streaks on a dirty surface but will not streak a clean surface as long as it is kept wet and rinsed frequently. 2. To remove the remaining primer after pressure washing, wash the surface of the remaining primer with TSP trisodium phosphate per package instructions. Do not use a wire bristle brush to clean the brick, as this will scratch the brick and mortar. Use a natural bristle or synthetic bristle brush specially designed for cleaning with acids. Wash from the bottom of the wall up to the proceeding to 16 the top of the building always keeping all surfaces wet below the area being cleaned. 3. If the above two methods fail to remove the primer, Staff recommends to paint the brick the same color as the brick. The applicant would be notified that this is one time painting of the brick. The brick is not to be repainted in the future. When the paint starts to peel off the house, and it will, the underlying color of the brick will match the color of the paint. When the peeling paint starts to peel, the homeowner can remove the paint with natural bristle brushes and hot water. Eventually all of the paint will be removed off the house and the brick will be back to its natural color. 4. The removal of the paint according to the first two steps listed above shall be finished within 90 days of the public hearing. If removal of primer is not possible, painting is to be complete within 90 and 120 days of the hearing. Painting is not to occur without inspection by the HDC Staff. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Staff cannot support the painting of the brick surface on the house. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item noting that the legal requirements for notification had been met. He noted that the applicant has received a letter given to all in May 2006. He also briefly explained previous enforcement issues. He said that he had been in contact with the State office about the removal of the primer and reversal of the primer. He presented the Staff recommendations with all four steps /options. He noted that there had been one phone call received by Staff concerning this application. Commissioner Julie Wiedower commented that the structure is a recent structure. The period of MacArthur Park is form the 1850's to the 1900's. She does not see this action as detracting or enhancing the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard stated that this structure could be called an early transitional ranch. Vice Chairman Wesley Walls commented that it was noted as a class 3 structure. He continued that he appreciated the applicant coming in. Chairman Marshal Peters asked about previous actions on the site. Staff Brian Minyard reported on them, the iron fence gate replacement, and the iron fence along 7th street. The applicant, Tanya Robinson, made a presentation about the work that was going on at her property. She stated that she had been in contact with Charles Bloom concerning the fence. (Editor's note: Mr. Bloom was a previous employee of the City of 17 Little Rock working with the Historic District Commission.) Mr. Bloom had worked with her and at his suggestion; the new gate and the reminder of the front fence had been painted black. She commented that she needed the new gate to park her vehicle on her property. At the time, she had small children and a small dog. The painting of the brick was discussed next. She commented that the painting of the brick would beautify the property and the cracks in the mortar had been repaired and were unsightly. She acknowledged that this was an enforcement issue and that she wants her property to look good. The entire structure and garage is primed. It is to be the same color as others in neighborhood. Plantings in the front are waiting to be planted. Commissioner Wiedower commented that she appreciated the hassle of dealing with the public hearing. Ms. Robinson commented that the structure would be painted taupe with white trim. Commissioner Susan Bell asked what kind of primer she used. Ms. Robinson commented that it is called "brick blocker primer" from Sherwin Williams. Vice Chair Walls said that he was not sold on the idea of pressure washing the primer off. He does not know how well it will work. Commissioner Wiedower commented that she was not sure of the expense of removing part of the primer only to have to reapply it later. John Fisher stated that he was a 30 -year citizen of the city of Little Rock and knows the applicant. He said that she is trying to enhance her property and he is in support of her application. Alisia Ferguson, a coworker of the applicant, commented that she did not understand the terminology of the commission. Chairman Peters explained the COA process along with Debra Weldon, City Attorneys office and Mr. Minyard. HL Moody of 512 E 8th Street stated that he was in opposition of this application. He stated that he did not agree that painting the brick would enhance the property. He lives in the district and had a question on the process. He commented that all should abide by the rules. A discussion was held about the rules and processes. Tommy Braswell, resident of the district, said that the property enhancement argument is very subjective and is the call of the commission. He was in opposition to the application. Chris Vanlandingham, resident of the district, is in opposition to this application. He stated that the brick was beautiful. Would it not be a contributing status if it were painted? He stated that he spent a lot of money to maintain his as contributing. Mr. Minyard stated that MacArthur Park had over 70% contributing status and it is not in a situation to lose that status because of one house. 18 Commissioner Wiedower mentioned for he record that her office was nearby to this site. Fowler Square has deteriorated over the last twenty years. She said that it was commendable and desirable that properties to be single - family owner occupied. Ms. Robinson said that she had lived across form Fowler Square for 17 years, 10 of which were pleasant. Now there are drug pushers. She noted that she has tried to be a good neighbor and maintain her property. Terry Mansion parties bring pleasantness to the neighborhoods. There is trash in the neighborhood. HL Moody commented about calling the city about other issues, trash, code violations, etc. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that the Staff did his homework. The guidelines state in multiple places about painting of brick. She referenced page 50 and 57 of the guidelines. Vice Chairman Walls questioned what would happen if she came in before her request and that his perspective would be to deny the request. He is not confident that removing the primer can be reversed. He does not support the paint and peel scenario. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the reversal were not okay, what would be the time line of painting? Commissioner Tatum sated that with the Staff recommendation, that the Staff would be setting the time line. Chairman Peters commented about how to state the motion. He wanted definitive proof of each step to be made to remove the paint. There was discussion about the motion and approving with conditions or denying with conditions. Further discussion included deferral to see if the paint could be removed. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she was in support of the COA. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the COA for the painting. Mr. Minyard stated that it was unnecessary for her to sate with or without Staff recommendations. Chairman Peters stated that it appeared there was not a second to the motion. Dissuasion occurred that the motion could fail for lack of a second. Chairman Peters asked for a second on the motion. Chairman Peters announced that the motion failed for lack of a second. Ms. Weldon stated why not second the motion and act upon it. A long time occurred before the motion was seconded by Vice Chair Walls. Vice Chair Walls asked what the outcome would be on this item. Chairman Peters stated that there were methods to remove the primer. Discussion continued on the process and the outcome of the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard suggested that the Staff recommendation could be changed to give the applicant 30 days to prove that the primer could not be removed from the brick. After 19 the proof that the primer was not going to come off, then the structure cold be painted. Commissioner Walls stated that he could support that Staff recommendation, but it was discussed that since he seconded, he could not second that motion. Commissioner Wiedower would have to change the original motion first. She stated that she would not change her original motion. Chairman Peters called for a vote. The motion passed with 3 ayes and two noes (Chairman Peters and Commissioner Tatum). 20 6/ 28/2007 19:38 5266750 COPH PAGE 01 Tonya R. Robinson 501 E. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (50 I) 247-4370 June 28, 2007 Mr. Brian Minyard, A.I.C.P. Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Minyard: This letter is to make you aware of my plans for improvements to my home which is located in the MacArthur Park Historic District at 501 E. 7th Street, Little Rock, AR. First of all, please accept my apologies fur not being better Informed of the rules and restrictions governing home owners in the Historic District. It certainly is not a common practice of mine to be in violation of City ordinances. The following is an explanation of the improvements that I am proposing for my home: Improvement: Paint brick and wood trim on exterior of house — Proposed paint color is for the brick is "Ashley Grey" (Taupe) by Benjarrin Moore. Reason. 1. Brick was cracked at several rnortar joints and patching leaves noticeable seam repair when not covered with paint. 2. After many years of repeated paint on eaves, gables, etc.; paint drips have caused brick to be less than attractive. Improvement: Replacement of ornamental wrought iron railing and post on front porch. Reason: 1. Wrought iron had become weak in some places due to rust deterioration. Some post failed to support the weight of the porch cover, potentially compromising the roof. 2. Replaced wrought iron with perma-cast colurnns because of their durability and guarantee against water intrusion. Also Cover letter from applicant 21 06/28/2007 16:38 5256750 COPH PAGE 02 because of esthetic quality which appears to be more consistent with other historic structures in the community. Improvement: Replace existing chicken wire fence with 6' cedar privacy fence. Reason: 1. Existing fence does not provide any privacy. My yard and windows on the rear side of my house back up to a parking lot. Apartments look into my backyard from the east side. I would like to have privacy from the rear side: of my house. Improvement: Rernoval of the concrete parking pad which sits directly in the middle of my yard, in front or the house. Previously, this house was used as a business and the previous owners had a concrete slab poured in the front yard. I would like to remove the concrete slab and lay new sod in its place. I would also like to have a concrete overlay poured in my driveway. Plans to pour new driveway will not include any coloration or etching. Reason: 1. Concrete slab in from of the house is an eyesore and looks inappropriate for the area, in my opinion. 2. Existing driveway needs to be replaced because of years of cracking and erosion. At this time, the driveway is almost non- existent. Note: I would like to amend my application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to include 1) installation of the perma-cast columms, 2) removal of concrete parking pad in middle of front yard, in front of house and 3) pouring a new driveway. It is my hope that the information provided above will be satisfactory to the review board in understanding and accepting my request to rnake all requested improvements to my home. If I can be of further assistance to you in providing additional. information or photos as examples; please feet free to contact me. Although I had not anticipated a delay in the planned improvments to my home; I have found the staff at the Department of Planning and Development to surprisingly, helpful and very pleasant. Thank you for that! Sincerely, Tonya R. Robinson Homeowner Cover letter from applicant continued 22 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. Two. DATE: July 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson ADDRESS: 509 East 7th Street COA The request is for approval of 8' privacy fence enclosing the rear yard REQUEST: with two pedestrian gates and one drive gate. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 East 7th Street. The property's legal description is "the north 100 feet of Lot 1 Johnson Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the 1960s and it is a non - contributing structure, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists it as a vernacular cottage. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the Location of Project lowest) and Historical Significance of State significance. State historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people who made statewide contributions to politics, medicine, commerce, education, and the women's suffrage movement. The public buildings are, or have been, important gathering places. The request is for approval of installing an 8' privacy fence in the back yard. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the property. A COA was needed, but it was never filed. 23 Existing east property line Existing west property line Existing south property line Existing north property line PROPOSAL: This application is for approval of 8' privacy fence enclosing the rear yard with two pedestrian gates and one drive gate. One pedestrian gate is located on the east side of the house between the front and back yard and the second gate is located at the southwest corner of the backyard exiting onto the existing parking lot of the apartments to the south. The drive gate will be located to the west of the house separating the rear and front yards. The fencing will start midpoint of the house. The proposal is for an eight-foot tall fence with solid cedar boards and a two- foot section of lattice above that. Posts will be of exaggerated width and height to visually accent the fence. Fence elevation as proposed by applicant 24 This application will be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance. Sec. 36-516(e)(1)a: Residential fence and wall standards of the Little Rock Municipal Code states: Between a required building setback line and a street right -of -way, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Subsection (7) states: Support columns or support posts shall be permitted to exceed the allowable fence or wall height by no more than two (2) feet, including any ornamental features. Support columns or support posts shall be a maximum width of two (2) feet. There shall be a minimum distance of seven -feet — six inches (7'-6') between opposing faces of support columns or support posts which exceed the allowable fence or wall height, other than at gates or corners. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 67 of the Guidelines, Section VI. Design Guidelines for Site Design A. Landscape Features 3. Fences and retaining walls states: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. 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 facade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. Chain -link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. 25 Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Freestanding walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. The request for a privacy fence in the rear yard is justifiable with two story buildings on the three sides of the property. This fence will screen the parking lots and first floors of the adjacent buildings. The need for an eight -foot tall privacy fence has not been demonstrated by the applicant. If topographical differences in the property and adjoining property were present, in some instances an eight- foot fence could be justified. However, this is not the case and an eight -foot fence will not provide any noticeable additional screening of the property from adjacent second story windows. Gates have been described in the photos as provided. The applicant described that she was going to make her fence exactly like the one in the photos. The tops of the pedestrian Wood fence elevation as recommended by guidelines gates are curved. Since historical pictorial evidence is not provided by the applicant, exaggerated support posts or columns and arched topped gates are not in keeping with the neighborhood. The wire fence along Seventh Street is historic and should be retained. The fence should be cleaned of its' rust and repainted in a black paint for metal applications. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Staff cannot support the request for an eight- foot tall fence surrounding the rear yard. Staff could support a six -foot cedar privacy fence as illustrated on the previous page "Wood fence elevation as recommended by guidelines" with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. 3. Design of privacy fence to be a plain dog-ear top design with horizontal rails to be placed to the interior of the lot. 4. Retention of wire fencing along street and along the side property lines from the rear of the house to the street. 26 COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item noting that the legal requirements for notification had been met. He presented the Staff recommendations and explained that the eight -foot height would not give the applicant any additional privacy from neighboring second floor windows than six-foot fence would. He noted that there had been one phone call received by Staff concerning this application. Arched top on gates Chairman Marshall Peters had a question regarding the recommendation. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant could amend the application at any time prior to the vote. Vice Chairman Wesley Walls asked if the front fence was to stay. Mr. Minyard said yes. Chairman Peters asked if the old wire fence was to remain. Mr. Minyard said that he assumed it would be taken out. Tanya Robinson, the applicant, stated that she wished to amend her application to have a fence of six feet in height with the post caps and a horizontal rail on the top. She amended her application to be as the fence submitted into the photo. (Editor's note: the photo, labeled "A," is in the file folder.) Mr. Minyard stated that the city measures fences like so. He pointed to a picture of a fence and said the total height could be six feet. You may have posts that stick yup 24' beyond that so long as your posts are not less than eight foot on center and so wide. You can have posts caps closer at the corners and at gates. He quoted the guidelines on privacy fences on page 66. He described the photo submitted by the applicant. The gates would have a flat top instead of arched. The applicant amended her application to state so. Ms. Robinson asked if the horizontal rails could be placed on the outside of her property versus the inside of the fence. Mr. Minyard stated that rails on the outside simply provided a ladder for people to climb over the fence into your property. The guidelines nor the zoning does not state which side to put the rails. Chairman Peters asked if she did not intended to leave metal fence on property line. Mr. Minyard commented that the metal fence on the east and west is not on her property according to the survey. HL Moody asked to clarify that the fence is to be six feet. Vice Chair Walls made a motion to approve the item as amended and Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion was approved with 5 aye votes. 27 Detail of proposed location of fence and gates 28 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. Three. DATE: July 9, 2007 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson ADDRESS: 509 East 7th Street COA The request is for Column replacement on front porch. REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 East 7th Street. The property's legal description is "the north 100 feet of Lot 1 Johnson Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the 1960s and it is a non-contributing structure, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists it as a vernacular cottage. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and Ill being the Location of Project lowest) and Historical Significance of State significance. State historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people who made statewide contributions to politics, medicine, commerce, education, and the women's suffrage movement. The public buildings are, or have been, important gathering places. The request is for approval of replacing the ornamental iron columns on the front porch with "PremaCast" fiber reinforced polymer composite columns. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the property. A COA was needed, but it was never filed. 29 Existing north elevation April 21, 2005 photo of north elevation PROPOSAL: This application is for approval replacing the ornamental iron columns on the front porch with four "PremaCast" fiber reinforced polymer composite columns. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines do not give advice on this exact situation. The guidelines state on page 54 and 55 under Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation B. Individual Building elements 4. Porches: Porches on the front and side fagades should be maintained in their original configuration and with original materials and detailing. The porch in its original design was intended as a focal point for the entrance to the house. If original, front and side porches should neither be removed nor filled in, as either would change the overall character. If a side or rear porch is not easily visible from the street, it may be enclosed, if the height and shape of the roof are retained and if the size of openings and materials match those of the main building. Filled in porches on the first of second story are not recommended. Porch details and steps: Porch details should be retained intact, with repair or replacement of missing parts (columns, posts, railings, balusters, decorative molding and trimwork) to match the original in design, materials, scale, and placement. Porch columns and rails should not be replaced with decorative ironwork. Porch floors should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the fagade, unless the original floor was concrete. Porches may be screened if the structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Ceiling fans should be mounted high enough to minimize view from the street. Porch steps, which are original to a property, should be retained and maintained. Brick and concrete steps are rarely original. 30 This house is considered an early transitional ranch with the pedimented entry feature and no garage facing the street. Mid century ranch houses of that time were built with either ornamental iron posts, square wood columns or round wood columns. It was not uncommon for houses to have the wood columns replaced with iron columns in the mid 60's. The new columns are located in the same spots as the original. It is the opinion of Staff that this house could have been built with columns that are very similar to the columns that are installed at the present time. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit within ten days of public hearing. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item noting that the legal requirements for notification had been met. He commented that there is not pictorial evidence as to whether it did or did not have round or square columns or metal. He presented the Staff recommendations. He noted that there had been one phone call received by Staff concerning this application with questions about the application. Ms. Robinson stated she would like to have the columns approved. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the posts were to be painted. The answer was yes. Chairman Peters asked is there were any citizens in support of this application. All three raised hands. Chris Vanlandingham, a resident of the neighborhood, voiced his concern over his own columns that need to be replaced on his house. He also commented that the commission appeared to be approving two items that were enforcement issues. HL Moody, a resident of the district, commented that "Pandora's box" had been opened with this application and subsequent approvals. Vice Chairman Walls made a motion to approve as submitted with Staff recommendations and Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion was approved with 5 aye votes. Chairman Peters made a comment for the record that this structure was non- contributing at the time of the vote. 31 IV. Other Matters a. Enforcement issues 722 Sherman received a certified letter for the roof replacement. Mr. Minyard referred the commissioners to page 96 to the guideline chart concerning roofs. He commented that the man at 722 Sherman replaced asphalt shingles with asphalt shingles. It was not a change in materials, shape, or eves. Commissioner Walls asked what the letter was sent for. Mr. Minyard said the letter was sent to have him fill out an application and then give him a COC when he gets his building permit. 1015 Cumberland is still interior work only. Staff is monitoring the situation. 308 E Daisy Bates, a permit was taken out on interior work only. Guidelines were given to him and a letter was given explaining the scope of work. b. Citizen Communication There was none. c. Staff noted that we had reapplied for the Preserve America grant for the citywide preservation plan. d. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the Hillcrest DOD and if the commission needed to do anything about it. Staff stated no. It will go to the Board of Directors later this month. e. Capitol View Stifft Station is looking at a Local Ordinance Historic District and the ball is in their court to do the mail out for a petition drive. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date 32