Loading...
HDC_06 12 2006DEPARTMENT 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 MINUTE RECORD Monday, June 12, 2006, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Job Serebrov Members Absent: Marshall Peters City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Michael Wood Sara Braswell Dr. Thomas Braswell Boyd Maher III. Approval of Minutes a. May 8, 2006 Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve as corrected (page 27 miscommunication instead of miss communication), and Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. IV. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. None V. New Certificates of Appropriateness Debra Weldon stated that both applications for a new Certificate of Appropriateness have met the notice requirement. 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. 1. DATE: June 12, 2006 APPLICANT: Dr. Thomas and Sara Braswell ADDRESS: 609 Rock Street COA Detached garage, covered walkway, screened porch and fencing REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 609 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lots 3 and 4, Block 151, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (1 being the highest and II being the lowest) and Historical Significance of no significance known. The 1978 survey lists the house at the Butler House as a ca. 1886 Eastlake Style. Location of Project The 1988 survey lists the house at the Butler House as an 1888 Queen Anne /Stick Style residence of a Contributing Status. The project is described as such: 1. Detached two car garage: The garage will be sited eight feet from the north property line and three feet from the alley in the north east corner of the site. It will be a story and a half structure with floored storage space above accessed from an interior stairway. The exterior of the garage will be in 4" Hardiplank siding with fishscale siding in the gable ends. The garage door will be on the alley side (east side) and shall be a 7' by 20' panelized steel door. The garage will have five windows, two on the south and three on the west wall, that are 2'-6" 2 by 5'-0" double hung with no shutters. of part of the existing fencing. 2. Covered walkway to house: The covered walkway will be over a five foot wide concrete walk and shall be of a wood frame construction with roof pitch similar to the existing structure and the proposed garage. Shingles will match the existing roof. Columns for support will be along both sides of the walk and will be a six by six post with chamfered edges. Location of Garage on northeast corner of site 3. Screened porch: A screened in The proposed garage will require removal porch will be added to the house on the southeast side. This will extend an existing porch that is currently there. The foundation of the porch will be brick to match the existing foundation of the house. The screening material shall fit into the frames and not overlap the frames. The walls and door shall be full view. The shingles shall match the house. The existing wood deck will be removed as well as part of the existing concrete slab. West facade South facade 4. New fencing: New fencing is proposed on the north property line to replace existing wire metal fencing. The fencing will be from four to six feet tall and be constructed of boards that will be straight across on the top. This will attach to the existing privacy fence at the northeast corner of the property. New fencing is proposed to replace the existing wire fencing on the south property line and attach to the existing privacy fence on the southeast corner of the property. These fences will be of wood, boards oriented vertically, and either left natural, stained or painted to blend in with the existing structure. 3 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On January 4, 1996, a COA was approved and issued to Jean Anne Phillips for "renovation of the home for a private residence and restore to the original." On May 11, 1995, an application for demolition was denied by the Commission. Existing fencing on northwest corner of house WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The New Construction Design Guidelines states four items relevant to the garage structure. "New Construction of Secondary structures such as garages and other outbuildings should be: 1. Smaller in scale than the primary building 2. Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building 3. Located as traditional for the street, near the alley, not close to or attached to the primary building; and 4. Compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape." The proposed garage follows the intent of the guidelines in it's design, placement, and compatibility with the main structure. The height of the new garage roof is taller than the house, however the overall mass and bulk of the garage is smaller than the primary structure. The garage has a floored attic under the 12:12 roof. The 12:12 roof matches the house. The New Construction Design Guidelines states the following item relevant to fencing: "D. Fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards; generally no taller that six feet; set back from the front fagade (wall plane) of the structure at least half way back from the front to the back walls; of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox); stained or painted to blend with the structure; and of design compatible with the structure." The new wood fencing as proposed is in compliance with the guidelines as stated. The applicant is varying the height of the fence from 4 feet tall to 6 feet tall to adhere to zoning requirements of a maximum of four feet high within the front yard setback of 15'. The addition of oversized corner posts (which have not been asked for) would not be compatible with the district nor would post caps. 4 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax; (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public Hearing day of � ! 200 Lat a e 190 p.m. 2. Address of Property: �(fLt!" Ifs 1G& —3 f . 3. Legal Description of Property- 7 —.3�� 4. ro w (N , Add , P o c, ax 54�M E �^ G 5. Owner's Agent: fphone.IPax/&mail) b. Project_Description (additional pages inay be 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: R. Zoning Classification: U o Is th ro ge a permitted use? Yes 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 5 May 22, 2006 To the Little Rock Historic District Commission From: Dr and Ms Thomas Braswell 609 Rock St Little Rock, AR 72202 501-301-7836 trbras@swbell.net RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2006 BY: We are requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness from your Commission. We propose to build the following structures on our home lot at 609 Rock Street, Little Rock, AR, 72202: A. New 2-car garage with interior storage space. It shall be simple in design but reflective of the character ofthe primary building. The automobile access shall be from the alleyway behind the main house. It shall be two stories with a single interior stairway leading to an unfinished second floor which will be utilized for storage purposes only. The dimensions shall be 24'-0" x 39-4 ". The exterior finish shall be in keeping with the finish of the existing house. It shall be 1"x 4" Hardie Siding planks painted to match the existing house. The exterior ground level shall have 3 windows on the west wall and two on the south wall, spaced to preserve symmetry. They shall be 2'-6" x 5'-0" and be double hung clad wood with no shutters. The exterior surface of the gables shall be constructed of wood shingles or a similar artificial substance such as vinyl so as to be of lower maintenance. These shingles shall be of the fish -scale shape and design to match those of the existing house. There will be wood vents on both gables, and there will be one window in each gable, each 2'-6" x 5'-0" double hung clad wood with no shutters. The roofing shall be of architectural grade composition shingles over 30# asphalt paper to match the existing roof and the pitch of the roof will be similar to the existing roof as well (12/12). The garage's overhead door shall be approximately 20'-0" wide and shall be constructed of metal or wood, shall be without windows and shall be painted in a color compatible with the primary structure. The exterior door for occupants shall be a 3'-0" x 6'-8" wood door with window pane in the upper half It shall be painted to be compatible with the existing structure. 1 Cover letter from applicant 6 The foundation shall be a smooth surface concrete slab. This will require removal of approximately 40' -0" of the existing wood fence along the alleyway and approximately 24'-0" of the existing picket fence running along the south lot -line. The remainder of the existing wood fence along the alleyway will remain unchanged and will adjoin the new garage. B. New screened porch to be added to the rear of the existing house. It will he 18'-0" x 14'-0 ". The existing porch slab will be extended by 9' -0" in length to the rear toward the new garage. The existing slab deck will have approximately 4" of new smooth - surface concrete poured atop it with a slope to the exterior at 1/8" per foot for drainage purposes. The porch will have brick around the exterior foundation base to match the existing foundation brick around the house. The porch walls and the door leading to the new garage shall be of damp -proof wood frame and the insect screening material will be of metal, either traditional anodized aluminum or bronze. The screening material shall fit within the window frames and will not overlap the frames. The door and the walls shall be of full view. The roof shall be built to intersect the existing roof and allow maximum drainage The roofing materials will be architectural grade composition shingles and will match the existing roof material and color. This porch addition will require removal of approximately 18'-0" of the existing picket fence and gate on the south lot line. The existing wood deck will be removed from the rear of the house. The existing slab deck will be partially removed in order to construct a new footing 24" wide. C. New covered walk-way connecting the garage and porch. A new smooth surface concrete slab walkway 5'-0" wide x 24'-0" long shall be constructed. It shall be covered by a wood frame with a roof which shall be of a pitch similar to the existing structure and the new garage. The roofing shingles shall be architectural grade composition and shall match the existing roof material and color. 2 Cover letter from applicant continued 7 There will be columns for support built along either side of the walkway. These shall be finished and constructed in keeping with the character of the existing structure. The ceiling and eaves of this structure shall be finished with a vinyl material to allow low maintenance. The columns and the finish shall be in keeping with the design of the columns on the front porch of the existing house, and of a similar construction. D. New sidewalk. A new sidewalk will be constructed to extend an existing sidewalk on the south side of the house to the gate in the picket fence that is being moved toward the new garage. It shall have a smooth concrete surface and be 3'-0" x ~15'-0 ". E. New fencing. A new wood privacy fence will be constructed to replace the existing wire metal fence material on the north property line. This shall be from four to six feet tall and finished straight across the top. This will attach to the existing wood privacy fence at the northeast corner of the property. A new wood privacy fence will replace the existing wire metal fence material on the south property line. This shall also be from four to six feet tall and attach to the existing wood privacy fence at the southeast corner of the property. Both of these fences shall be of wood boards oriented vertically, left natural, stained or painted to blend with the existing structures. 3 Cover letter from applicant continued 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. No exterior lighting has been included with this application. Any lighting fixtures that are proposed to be installed will have to be approved by this commission through the COA process. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: May 12, 2006 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation. Sara Braswell made a presentation concerning the improvements. She stated the reason for the garage was to prevent vandalism. She continued that the plan was a comprehensive one, and would be done in phases. She also stated that there would be a motion sensor light on the garage facing towards the house and that the walkway to the house would stay. She said that the Fishscale shingles may be deleted due to cost and may be replaced with a plain siding material. She also may add a window in the south gable for illumination in the upstairs storage area. She wants to start the fencing at the northwest corner of the house instead of half of the way back as the guidelines state. Dr. Tom Braswell added that the fence on the side of the house is four feet tall and the rear yard fence is six feet tall. The south property line is unknown as to whether it will be four or six feet in height. Instead of fencing, there will be landscaping across the front of the property along Rock Street. Commissioner Wesley Walls added that he thought that the Hardie Company makes a Fishscale siding. Dr. Braswell asked if it could be used on the project. Chairman Carolyn Newbern stated that Hardie siding could be used on new construction. Commissioner Walls added that he was unsure whether Hardie made a Fishscale siding or not. (Staff note: The Hardie Company does make a fish scale siding called "Half-Round Notched Panel "). Commissioner Walls continued that the building is well proportioned. He was not concerned with the height of the building being taller than the house and the pitch matching was more important than the height issue. Chairman Newbern added that with the building being that far back on the lot, that the height would appear to be okay. Mr. Minyard asked if the window in the gable would be the same as the windows below. Ms. Braswell said yes. Chairman Newbern asked which way the wood fencing would be faced. The answer was that the finished side would be outwards to the neighbors. Chairman Newbern also asked about the lighting of the structure. Ms. Braswell said that the motion detector would be at the corner of the residence pointing 9 towards the garage. She said it would be simple in design. Commissioner Walls asked if there were lights under the canopy. A discussion occurred about putting lights under the canopy that were not visible from the street instead of the motion sensor light. The applicants amended their application to add relatively unobtrusive lighting under the canopy of the walkway. The discussion then turned to fencing. was to allow the caps on the fencing fencing. The consensus of the commissioners to match the existing caps of the old A motion was made by Commissioner Walls to approve the application as amended with staff recommendations as amended with conditions as follows: 1. Lighting as discussed to be discreet and under the roof 2. Fence caps to match existing 3. Fence heights are to be four feet from northwest corner of house to the northeast corner of house; Six feet on the remainder of the north property line and 6 feet in height on the alley to the corner of the new building. 4. Investigate Hardie products for Fishscale siding 5. Submit siding and lighting changes to Staff for approval. Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 10 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. 2. DATE: June 12, 2006 APPLICANT: Michael Wood ADDRESS: 1016 McGowan COA Exterior Lighting REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1016 McGowan. The property's legal description is Lots 1-6, Block 5 Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This building is a new building built in 2005. It is not a contributing structure to the district. This application is a result of an enforcement action. The exterior was installed without a COA by the HDC. The applicant is seeking approval of previously installed exterior lighting to the building PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: Location of Project On December 2, 2004, a COA was approved for the construction of a new building. The application is described as such: The original application on the site did not include any exterior lighting. Six fixtures of exterior lighting were installed without a COA. The applicant has removed two lighting fixtures from between the second and third floors of the building, but, did not remove the junction boxes that were mounted to the exterior of the brick and leaving wires exposed to the elements. This may be a violation of electrical codes. These junction boxes should be removed, the wires terminated inside the building, and the bricks sealed with a mortar, caulk, or other sealer so that it would be undetectable from the ground. Three light fixtures remain on the building and are the subject of approval. Exposed junction box Light on east facade Light on south facade Light on north facade WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Lighting portion of the Guidelines state the following relevant to the application: 1. Lighting fixtures introduced to the exterior of a structure should be from the period of the structure, or new if simple in design, based on traditional designs of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and mounted on porch ceilings or adjacent to entrances. 2. Lighting for security, such as floodlights, should be mounted on secondary and rear facades. 3. Lighting for sidewalks and front yards should be small footlights rather than post - mounted fixtures. 4. Lighting fixtures to be avoided are carriage lamps or any fixtures evocative of an period earlier than the structure. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF "PROPRIATENJESS Application Date: %r A 4+ 1. Date of Public Hearing:LA `C day of l.ha 200 -L at : a' p.m. 2. Address of Property: kOk(;, tM G,�.rJan \,`3 �Qt ►�L- 1?� (3;), 3. Legal Descriktion of Property ' i ti@ 'K4c \" 6. Project Dcscri tion (addkiorW psges may ba added): Cov,\ tr c3+ti tit , 7 \o , 2' 7. Estimated Costof Improvements:_ c� 8. Zoning Classification !n � Is the pro change a permitted use? Ycs No 9. Signature of Owner orAgent : (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 13 May 18, 2006 Little Rock Historic District Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Michael Wood and I am one of the owners of Barrister Court Apartments located at 1016 McGowan. The builder of these apartments, Jim Btters of Tree House Developments, had the plans for this building approved by this commission prior to construction. I have now just recently learned that the initial plans he had approved had no outside lighting on the building. However, when he completed the construction he placed security lighting on the front and on the ends of the building. There are two lights on the front that illuminate the sidewalk going to the front door and one on each end of the building that illuminate were the tenants park. We are now asking that the commission consider letting the light fixtures remain in place for safety. The UALR Law School is allowing the tenants to park in their secured fenced in parking lot. They have placed a gate across the street from the south end of the building. The light on the south end will help make the crossing to the building safer. There are no street lights that illuminate the paths of the tenants. Since the building opened there has only been one time period when the lights were not functioning properly 4128/06 — 5101/06. Two out of these three nights tenants' cars were broken into. Other than these two nights there have been no other burglaries since the opening of the apartments. Sincerely, Michael Wood Cover letter from applicant 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining an electrical permit for removing and /or replacement of lighting fixtures. 2. Remove additional junction boxes and seal off wires according to electrical codes of the City of Little Rock. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: May 12 2006 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation. Michael Wood, the applicant, made a presentation to the commission that the two junction boxes will come down, the two east facing lights are smaller, and the two on the north and south facades are larger. He continued that there is no parking to speak of on the site and that the light on the south end of the building illuminates all the way to the fence at the north property line of the law school parking lot. He also added that he took over the project from his former partners. Chairman Carolyn Newbern added that this was a new structure and not a contributing structure. Commissioner Wesley Walls stated that he had two issues: The small light fixtures on the east side were okay, but the other fixtures would be bright into your eyes. Chairman Newbern asked if there was lighting in the law school parking lot. Commissioner Walls asked if there were streetlights. Mr. Wood answered that there was a streetlight on the east end of the block that did not serve the patrons well. A discussion occurred on the possibility of shielding the lights. Chairman Newbern stated that she was sympathetic for lighting on a new non- contributing structure. Commissioner Kay Tatum clarified that it was four lights in total. Commissioner Walls said that pole mounted lights are a great expense, but not the best solution in this situation. Commissioner Walls asked if there was lighting under the canopies. Mr. Wood commented that there were lights in the north and east canopies, but not on the south canopy. A discussion followed on the necessity of lighting under the canopy. Non-obtrusive can lights under the canopy was the consensus of the commissioners. Mr. Minyard stated that there was a letter of support from the Dean of the Law School that was handed out to the commissioners. A motion was made by Commissioner Serebrov to approve the application as submitted with staff recommendations with additional lighting on the south canopy. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 15 V. Other Matters Boyd Maher, of the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program, regrettably noted that the City of Little Rock was not receiving a CLG grant this year. He continued that the committee had asked the city of Little Rock get caught up on the backlog of grants. Chairman Newbern added that the commission must have a preservation plan in order to obtain other survey grants. a. Enforcement Issues. Mr. Minyard stated that the enforcement issues were the same as last time with McGowan Street still on the list even though they appeared at the meeting today and 1301 Cumberland is on the list. The other items have not changed. Commissioner Job Serebrov presented his verbal resignation at the end of this meeting. He continued that he enjoyed working with the commission; it did good work and would like to see it expanded to other districts. (Staff comment: Commissioner Serebrov has sent his letter to be reappointed to the Commission, but it has not been acted upon by the Board of Directors. His name will now be removed from consideration for reappointment.) VI. Adjournment A motion was made to adjourn by Commissioner Walls and seconded by Commissioner Tatum. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 16