Loading...
HDC_08 04 2005LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD Thursday, Aug 4, 2005, 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 (Chair) Marshall Peters (Vice Chair) Kay Tatum Wesley Walls Job Serebrov Members Absent: none Deputy City Attorney: Deborah Weldon Staff Present: Charles Bloom Tony Bozynski II. Approval of Minutes a. June 2, 2005 Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Peters seconded. The minutes were approved 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. b. July 14, 2005 Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Peters seconded. The minutes were approved 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. III. Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects a. 1020 Rock Street. It was found that notice was properly given. b. 1410,1416 Commerce Street. It was found that notice was properly given. IV. New Certificates of Appropriateness Page 1 of 20 V. 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 MINUTE RECORD ITEM NO. One. DATE: August 4, 2005 APPLICANT: Barbara Core ADDRESS: 1020 Rock Street, Little Dock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Enlarge an existinggarage door, replace existing fence, addition of a rearporch roof, and addition of awnings over front doorways. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1020 Rock Street. The property's legal description is "East 68 feet of Lot 7 Block 45 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. And the West 72 feet of Lot 7, Block 45 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This property is a commercial building that is used as a residence. The building is classified as being Italianate Commercial Style and was constructed circa 1886. The Italianate Commercial Style is characterized by buildings having a first floor facade often of cast iron, the second of brick. Typically capping the building is a requisite heavy, bracketed cornice. It is considered a "Contributing Above. The property at 1020 Rock Street at the present time. Below: The property as shown in the 1988 Architectural Survey. Page 2 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The building is currently undergoing interior renovations, which does not require a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant has indicated that they would like to enlarge an existing garage door opening, replace an existing fence, add a shed roof over the rear porch, and addition of awnings over front doorways. ANALYSIS: The applicant has requests multiple changes for this property that may require different levels of consideration. The door enlargement and redesign is on the south facade of the building and is easily visible to residents along 11`' Street. The applicant proposes new awnings on east facade which represents the front facade of the building. This facade has a strong relationship to Rock Street and the street corner. Since this is a contributing structure and poses a significant presence in the neighborhood any additions to either of the street facades will need to respect the districts overall character and be compatible with nearby historic structures. Staff feels that the addition of the doors and the rear shed roof are of lesser importance because of their limited visibility from the street. Front Facade .Awnings: The applicant proposes the addition of two awnings over the existing storefront front doors. These awnings will have a metal standing seem roof material and wooden brackets. The applicant has also provided exhibits indicating that the style is common with commercial storefronts in the area. The applicant supplied "Awning Bracket Design" exhibit shows a scissor design holding up the awning. Staff believes that this design is compatible with the district as long as the brackets are wooden. The applicant has not indicated if a separate material will be used for the underside of Above: Awnings are proposed above the two doorways which are currently covered during renovation. Below: Existinggarage door, window, and fence on the properly. The door and the Page 3 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD the awning. If so, staff would support a wooden material similar to that in the "Awning Bracket Design" exhibit. Garage Door /Exterior Door: The applicant has proposed expansion of an existing single car garage door on the south fagade. The existing garage door is not original to the structure. (See applicant provided "Existing Garage Door Exhibit ".) Expanding this door will result in the loss of one four over four single hung wood window. The applicant's proposed new garage door will be 8 1/2' wide and retain the same height. Also proposed will be a three-foot exterior door adjacent to the new garage door. The three -foot door will be in place of the existing window. The applicant has indicated that the new garage door and exterior door will be solid wood. The applicant has based the design off of a garage door that exists in the historic district. (See applicant provided "Style of Proposed Garage Door Exhibit ".) Staff reminds the Commission that the existence of one particular style of door or architectural style does not set precedent for all appropriate design in the district. Individual plans are reviewed upon their own merit. The applicant has noted that the design for the door is approximate. The appearance of a wooden garage door similar to the one proposed may not harm the district's character. Staff also would like to remind the applicant or contractor performing the work that they would be working with historic masonry and should be knowledgeable in working with mortar on historic buildings. Use of Portland cement on this building could cause damage to the surrounding brickwork. Staff suggests a type "N" mortar. Staff also encourages recycling of the old window so it can be used on the property if needed. Fence: The applicant has indicated that they would like to replace an existing fence in the historic district with an eight foot wooden board on board fence with brick piers. The applicant has also stated that the piers are replicated from existing piers at 11'and Scott Streets. The existing fence on the property is a wood picket fence just under six feet tall. This fence has approximately a quarter inch separation between boards. Staff would be supportive of similar gap sizes in a new fence. Staff has noted that property setbacks the property is zoned R -4A which requires a five foot setback from the property line for any new fence over four feet tall. The applicant has indicated that they will file for the August 29, 2005 Board of Adjustment hearing date. Existing fence to be replaced Page 4 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD The applicant has indicated that the proposed fence height is to be in character with both of the existing buildings and will have extensive landscaping in between the piers. Staff feels that the eight -foot fence may not be appropriate for the district and would prefer a six -foot fence since residential properties front 11th Street directly across the street from the proposed fence. No fence has been proposed for the north property line. Rear Facade: The applicant has indicated that they would like to install a pair of 3' X 8' antique oak doors on the rear of the structure. These new doors will be located on a currently windowless / doorless facade. Staff recommends that the person completing the work be respectful to the existing antique brick and mortar to minimize any possible effects brick removal and mortar addition may cause. These doors have limited visibility from the street and should not affect the district's character. Existing garage door, window, and fence on the prnperty. The door and the window will be removed as part of this application. Also indicated on the rear fagade is a "slant roof' approximately 10' deep X 30' across. Staff will refer to this roof porch as a shed roof. Metal shed roofs were common on commercial structures at the turn of the 19"' Century. Typically these roofs were located on the front fagade but were sometimes located on the back. The applicant has indicated that the roof material will be corrugated tin. Staff feels like the shed roof and its location would not have a detrimental effect on the character. The applicant has not indicated any additional materials that would be used for construction of the roof. The applicant has provided "prospective views" which indicate exposed rafters and an elevation drawing indicating vertical siding. The horizontal siding and verge board is visible from 11th Street. Staff would recommend that materials for the siding be cement fiberboard, which has the crisp dimensions of wood, or wood. Staff prefers that the application be amended at the public hearing to identify what materials will be used. Page 5 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD Other Comments: Upon a site visit staff noticed several elements of the building were in need of repair. On the southern facade stucco had cracked and broken off in several places. Staff feels that damage to the stucco is fixable and would encourage that it be done in a respectful manner in the future. This repair will not require a COA if it repaired with a similar stucco. Staff also noticed that there was some deterioration of the windowsill that will remain on the south facade. The sill will most likely have to be replaced in the future. Again, a COA is not required if the repairs are done with a similar wood material. Staff has noted damage to the stucco on southern facade. Also noted was damage to the window rill that will remain on the south facade. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of printing, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation approval as filed with the following staff recommendations: 1. Front Facade Awnings a. The underside of awnings (if needed) be wood. 2. Garage Door /Exterior Door a. The overall appearance of the door is to reflect vertical slats held together by diagonal slats with alternating interior angles on every other door. b. The applicant provide detailed drawings of the rear doors of the structure when design is complete. 3. Fence a. The fence and piers be only 6 feet tall, have no more than one quarter inch gaps between boards, and be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 4. Rear Facade. a. The horizontal siding and verge board visible from 11 `h Street be cement fiberboard or wooden. b. The underside of shed roof (if needed) be wood. Page 6 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 4, 2005. Staff member Charles Bloom made a brief presentation stating all staff recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report. Staff noted that the applicant would not need approval from the Little Rock Historic District Commission for construction of the wooden fence on the north side of the property, however, it would require approval by the Little Rock Board of Directors because of its eight foot height. Commissioner Newbern asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest relating to this case. Commissioner Tatum stated for the record that she knew the applicant but had no financial interest in the application. Mrs. Barbara Core made a brief presentation. She stated that all of the proposed changes were appropriate. She said the underside of the awnings and shed roof will be exposed. Commissioner Walls and Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification on what awnings she was talking about. She clarified that for staff. Mrs. Core noted that the undersides will have wood brackets and joyces. A discussion began between the applicant and the Commissioners during the applicant's presentation. Commissioner Walls asked what material would be used for the finish on the awnings and the roof. More specifically he asked if it would be standing seem. Mrs. Core replied: Metal. Mrs. Core continued her presentation and noted that the doors to be used on the west (rear) facade came from the old entry doors from the old Rodney Parham school and are approximately 3' by 7'-8' and 2.5" inches thick. She felt they were appropriate. Commissioner Walls said they were nice. Mrs. Core clarified the design of the rear -shed roof and stated that beveled wood siding would be on the vergeboards and the underside would be exposed wood beams. She stated she would like to keep the design simple to be in character with the building and had no problems with the staff recommendation. Mrs. Core noted that the planned to leave the underside of the shed roof open because of the building's historical use as a commercial building. She felt that a simple design would be more in character. Mrs. Core questioned staff's recommendation of only a six foot fence, not the eight foot fence as requested. Mrs. Core made a presentation of how the eight foot fence would be in character with the building scale. She noted that they also owned the other commercial structure to the west (316 East 11th Street) and this fence would tie the two structures together. She also noted extensive landscaping around the fence that would compliment Page 7 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD the fence. Mrs. Core also passed out pictures of area fences similar in height and noted how a eight foot fence may increase site security. She also passed out an additional handout relating to Mrs. Core next passed out handouts about safety and traffic concerns. (See attached handouts). She also noted that they were replicating the piers from 101h and Scott Street. Commissioner Serebrov asked if the applicant intended for a decorative lattice on the fence. Mrs. Core responded: "No, it wouldn't be appropriate for a commercial building." Commissioner Walls and Commissioner Peters asked questions regarding locations of some of the pictures. Commissioner Newbern mentioned noted her support of the application. Staff noted that the neighbor across the street, Joshua Malone, was in support of the new fence. She also noted that Tommy Jameson thought the fence design was appropriate. Commissioner Newbern asked if anybody had comments regarding the application. Margaret Brueggeman of 1423 Commerce Street said that the application was fine with her. Commissioner Serebrov asked if staff had a new opinion on the fence height. Staff responded they would support the fence height, and reminded the Commission that the Board of Adjustment would determine the ultimate fence height. Deputy City Attorney Weldon reminded the commission that they were to look at the appropriateness of the fence and not the hardships that were presented by the applicant. Commissioner Newbern also clarified that the Commission was to look at the overall design and that the height would ultimately be up to the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Newbern clarified Deputy City Attorney Weldon's comments for the Commission. Commissioner Walls commented that the project had lots of merit and the brick pillars looked nice since it was a commercial building. He also noted that her other points were more personal. Commissioner Newbern asked if the applicant were applying for anything else on the property as a response to finding a previously approved COA application that was not acted upon for 316 East 11th Street, which is adjacent to, and owned by the applicant. She indicated that the application was for a potting shed that would be located behind the fence. Mrs. Core responded that the potting shed was not appropriate and there were no plans for it at this time. Page 8 of 20 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1020 Rock Street MINUTE RECORD Commissioner Newbern summarized the application request as follows. The front fagade awnings be constructed of standing seam metal with a metallic finish with no wood underneath. The garage door and exterior door that will be created on the 11th Street side will be designed as submitted and added that caution should be used with the brick around it. If the design were to change contact staff. The fence design with brick piers and wood be constructed as shown with no more than a quarter inch gaps between boards. The Board of Adjustment will approve the fence height. On the rear fagade, that the shed roof will be a corrugated tin steel roof. The horizontal siding be either the cement fiberboard or wooden with the beveled design as mentioned by the applicant. Commissioner Walls made a motion to accept the application with the before mentioned conditions. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. Page 9 of 20 VI. 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 MINUTE RECORD ITEM NO. Two. DATE: June 16, 2005 APPLICANT: Jennifer Herron w /Herron Horton Architects ADDRESS: 1410, 1416 Commerce Street, Little Dock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construct one new home and a detached garage /apartment. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1410, 1416 Commerce Street. The property's legal description is "The North 28 feet, of Lot 9 Block; All of Lot 10; and the South 1 '/2 feet, of Lot 11 Block 54, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The properly at 1410, 1416 Commerce Street. Since the home is of new construction it cannot be considered as a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District until it is at least 50 years old. This application is also undergoing an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for construction of a second detached living unit. It's current zoning of R4A (Urban Residence District) allows for duplex development as long as the units are attached. In the event that the CUP is approved the permit will run in perpetuity or until it is revoked by the property owner. This CUP should not affect the application. Staff will meet with the zoning staff to ensure that the two applications are compatible. The CUP is scheduled for the September 1, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. Page 10 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410, 1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD ANALYSIS: There are several criteria related to this case in the District's Guidelines. The Design Guidelines for new construction of primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings. This calls for new construction to be compatible with existing historic structures on the street block. The design guidelines state that compatibility is calculated by evaluating shape; building scale; roof shape and pitch; orientation to the street; location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays; foundation height, floor -to- ceiling height; and porch height and depth. Exterior materials and material colors are looked at for compatibility as well. If the exterior to be used is brick and mortar, and color tones should be similar. If the new construction is frame matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite is considered encouraged. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not encouraged on any construction in the historic district. New construction also requires a more in depth look at the exterior characteristics of the building. Details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, cave depths, watercourses, corner boards, etc. should be similar to those of surrounding properties. An important rule with new construction within the historic district is that new buildings should blend in with adjacent buildings and not be too imitative of historic styles. The reason for this is so that new construction can be distinguished from historic buildings in the district. "New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." (Secretary of the Interior's Standard). In 1990 the homes at 1416 and 1410 Commerce Street were demolished by the city at the request of nearby residents because the structures were burned, dilapidated, and had been declared unsafe and a public nuisance. The properly at 1416 (left), 1410 (rigbt) Commerce Street. Shown in this 1988 picture The proposal is for a single family home 2196 sq. ft. in size on two vacant lots in MacArthur Park. The building orientation will result in a two story house oriented towards Commerce Street. A secondary building, a garage with first floor living unit, will also be included in the Page 11 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410,1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD design. The buildings total height will be 26 feet, 8 inches which is an approximate measurement from the grade to the top of the home. The homes total width will be 51 feet 5 inches. The foundation height of the home will be 2 feet. Floor heights are all nine feet with vaulted ceilings in the dining room. This total width measures from the southerly sunroom to the northern chimney. The principle facade and front porch will measure approximately 22 feet in width and be closest to Commerce Street. The porch will be 33 feet from Commerce Street. Setbacks on this street vary and range from 32 feet to 40 feet. The home to the north is setback approximately 40 feet and the one to the south is 33 feet. The projecting facade's depth of 33 feet will be closer to the southerly property and should remain in character. The applicant's proposed sunroom extending out Existing Single Family home near the property. Above: Across the Streel, Bottom Left. immediately South. Bottom Right. Immedialefy north the northern facade will be setback will be approximately 55 feet from the property line. This setback may not be as noticeable because of the prominent projecting facade. The applicant has indicated that the roof pitch on the projecting facade will be 8:12. The home immediately across the street has a roof pitch of 8:12. The porch and side porch will have a 3.5:12 pitch hipped roof above. The northern and southern facades will have shed roofs that have a similar 8:12 pitch. The northern facade will have an exposed gable bisected by a brick fireplace. The total height of the porch from ground to top grade will be 14 feet 6 inches. The roof and porch pitches and heights could appear to be in character with homes on the block. Staff believes that the roof character is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Page 12 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410, 1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD A covered breezeway will connect the home and the secondary structure. Because of the terrain the breezeway will have steps and change in elevation in order to match the topography. At the present time, the applicant had not come to a final conclusion as to where the elevation changes will occur. Since the breezeway is located in the rear of the home and located immediately behind the home, the structure height will reduce its visibility and may not have a significant impact on the historic district's character. The proposed foundation will be constructed of concrete block with a brick veneer. The applicant has not indicated the size of brick that will be used to cover the foundation. Large bricks may be out of character while smaller, more traditional brick sizes would be in character. The applicant has indicated that siding to be used on the home will be fiber cementitious lap siding, as well as corner boards, trim, and fascia. Staff feels that clarification of the soffit material is necessary. The lap siding placement and design will result in a 5 -inch exposure that will be painted. The exterior materials of the building should be compatible with the district's character. The applicant has described the porch area as having "wood tongue and groove wood flooring and ceiling." Also on the porch will be permacast square columns. The square columns would reflect similarity to the home immediately north of the application. The applicant has not stated whether or not a railing will be featured on the front porch. Nearby properties in the historic district have ornate wooden railings on them. Not continuing the ornate wooden railings on this porch may disrupt the level of craft that is supported by surrounding homes. The applicant has proposed architectural asphalt shingles for the roof and proposes a 1 foot overhang. The design guidelines encourage dark colored roofs on residential buildings within the district. The proposed one foot overhang appears in character with the district with staff noting the similarity in overhang size to that directly across the street. The applicant has provided elevation plans that illustrate the window patterns on the house. Most of the windows will be double hung windows with simulated divided lights. The applicant has indicated that the windows will be metal clad wood windows and will appear to be two- over -two with a majority of the windows being double hung. Also indicated on the plans are several casement windows. The overall window placement in the house appears to be consistent with the neighborhood character. Staff has only one concern with windows on the front facade. A double hung window at the southern end of the front (east) facade may be more appropriate in place of the smaller casement window. Staff also has concerns regarding the artificial lights in the windows. In the event that they are approved staff believes that any decorative muntin grids are stuck to both the interior and exterior of the windows, and one between glass panes. The exterior grille can be made of wood and would be permanently adhered to the glass. The proposed secondary building will be located off the alley and be used as a garage with an attached living unit. This part of the application is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit because it will result in two single family detached units on a Page 13 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410,1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD lot. This application will be heard at the September 1, 2005 hearing. The applicant has indicated that the building will be constructed using similar materials as the home. This structure should not have a negative impact on the district. The applicant has not mentioned what material the front door will be. Wooden doors are common in the historic district and may be the least intrusive to the neighborhood. The applicant has not indicated where fences on the property will be located. Staff believes that a 6' non - painted dog eared fence would be appropriate for this property if set back from the entire front facade of this building. Staff will require a detailed fencing plan before fence construction were to begin. Additionally, any new fence should have a positive relationship with existing fences nearby. North of the property a fence exists that a new fence should match and attempt to align with. In the event of air conditioning of the proposed structures it would be best to utilize a central airconditioning unit. Staff would recommend placement of the airconditioning unit behind the proposed fence and out of view from the street. On the site are existing steps from a previous residence. Staff would prefer that they remian to help illustrate the overall history of the area. This homes new construction will result in the construction of a new pathway connecting the front porch to the street. To be in line with the overall character of the neighborhood a sidewalk perpendicular to Commerce Street would be most appropriate. In the event that a proper alignment could not be made and the existing steps would be removed staff would recommend construction of similar steps in their place. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed with the following conditions: 1. Wood fencing shall be 6' wood dog -eared fence with no stain or paint applied. Plans to be submitted to staff to be approved by staff prior to construction. 2. Brick to be used on chimney and foundation be small brick similar in size to adjacent properties. 3. Double hung, one-over-one, wood-clad windows on all elevations of the home as illustrated in the elevation plans with no snap in or flush muntins. 4. A wooden front door on the eastern facade. 5. Any external air conditioning units be located in the rear of the yard behind the fence and not visible from Commerce Street. Page 14 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410,1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: AUGUST 4, 2005. The applicant, Donna Colon, and her agents, Jennifer Herron and Jeff Horton, were present. Margaret Brueggeman and Wyatt Weems, adjacent property owners, were there to ask questions regarding the application. Staff member Charles Bloom made a brief presentation, explaining "Recommendations" in the previously - circulated Staff Report. Jennifer Herron made a brief presentation to the Commission. Herron identified that the setback would be 25 feet from the sidewalk and in character with nearby homes. Because the new structure will be constructed on in the middle of two previous lots, Herron noted that they are proposing to remove both sets of steps and the existing retaining wall, but, would build a new walkway and steps perpendicular to the sidewalk in an appropriate place. Herron indicated that they would build a similar retaining wall if the slope of the site mandated it. She also indicated that they are proposing on concrete parking space off the alley. Mrs. Herron also noted that a breezeway would connect the structure with the apartment /garage in the rear. Jeff Horton noted that a fence diagram was given to staff before the hearing. Staff agreed. A brief concern began regarding the fence on the south part of the property near the condenser units. Mrs. Herron noted that they could move the fence closer to the street to hide the condenser units if necessary. A discussion began between the applicant and the Commissioners during the applicant's presentation. Commissioner Walls suggested shifted the units forward and towards the inside corner created by the exterior walls of the house to provide screening and leave the fence as indicated on the plan. The applicant agreed. Jennifer Herron additionally stated that the exterior materials of the building would be hardiplank with a five inch exposure. The hardiplank proposed for use will be of smooth finish, not faux wood grain. Herron also stated that brick sizes will be modular and compatible with nearby buildings. Herron indicated that the porch would consist of a wood tongue and groove floor, have square permacast columns, and not have railings. Mrs. Herron noted that railings on the homes in the district aren't always necessary. A brief discussion began on whether or not a railing would be required by code. Mrs. Herron said that the proposed porch did meet code and a railing would not be required. Additionally, Herron noted that they are proposing metal clad windows and also propose simulated divided light windows. Jeff Horton, also representing the applicant, explained that simulated divided light windows have muntins on both the inside and outside of the glass, and an internal muntins Horton stated that they appeared to look like divided light windows to the common eye. A discussion on divided light windows began. Page 15 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410, 1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD Herron commented on staff's recommendation for a double hung window replacing a casement window on the east fagade and said it may not be appropriate to leave it as initially filed. Commissioner Walls concurred. It was agreed upon that the small fixed window was appropriate contrary to staff recommendation. A brief discussion began on the lots and their sizes based off of a question from Margaret Brueggeman of 1423 Commerce Street. Mrs. Herron and Mr. Horton noted that the build-able space is approximately 79 feet north to south and their will still be a vacant lot south of the application. Commissioner Newbern noted that it appeared as if they had gone into the public comment section. A discussion began on the fence height and how the fence would line up with an existing fence to the north. An agreement was made that the fences would look best if they were staggered. Wyatt Weems of 1402 Commerce (the owner of the property immediately north of the application) was concerned about the property survey and the fence design. It was noted that his existing fence will remain and the applicant's fence will line up to it. Mr. Weems and Mrs. Herron agreed on the discussed fence design. Ms. Brueggeman had questions regarding how the property would look. Mrs. Brueggerman also asked if the apartment would be rental. Herron stated it would be for her client to visit initially since the home was being constructed as a home for her mother. It was noted that the applicant will be seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the apartment from the Planning Commission. A discussion began regarding the fence on the north side of the property and how it would tie in to the adjacent property. Commissioner Newbern commented on the length. Mrs. Herron noted that it was approximately 10 feet in length. Commissioner Walls commented about the fence on the north side of the property. Commissioner Newbern asked a general question as to whether or not the fence would look better if it lined up flush with the existing fence. Wyatt Weems of 1402 Commerce said it would probably look better the way it is proposed because it makes a recessed "slot" between the properties. Commissioner Walls agreed. Jeff Horton mentioned that if they were to tie into the fence flush it would not line up with the front of the proposed home. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification. Page 16 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410, 1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD Jeff Horton stated that Mr. Weems' fence would "turn and come back." In essence this description meant that it would remain as is and the other one would meet as proposed originally. Commissioner Newbern asked if the proposed fence design was an issue to him. He said "No." Mr. Weems additionally stated that he was concerned of the proposed fence because of the survey stakes he saw on the site. He mentioned that it appeared that the survey stakes illustrated that his fence was slightly on her surveyed property. Several people in the room laughed at the thought of that being an issue. Mr. Weems additionally stated that he was concerned that he would have had to move the fence. Since there is a tree line there he would have to move about four trees to move it back into line. Mr. Weems asked a question to Mrs. Herron regarding the apartment proposed on the alley. Mrs. Herron stated that it would act as a guesthouse. Margaret Brueggeman of 1423 Commerce Street indicated that the accessory dwelling unit was her primary concern. Mrs. Herron and the Commission let Ms. Brueggeman know that this property would be heard at the September 1, 2005 planning Commission hearing for a Conditional Use permit regarding the apartment. Staff noted that she should be receiving notice of the hearing shortly. Mrs. Herron noted that they did not have a problem with the rest of the staff report and agreed that the wood front door was a reasonable request. Commissioner Tatum had asked what the square footage of the home would be. Herron responded that it will be approximately 2196 square feet. Commissioner Walls commended the design. Commissioner Tatum agreed and liked the steps. Mrs. Herron clarified that the steps were indeed concrete, but may not be in the same location. She also noted that the perpendicular pathway relationship to the street is an important characteristic in the neighborhood. Commissioner Newbern asked that, if a retainer wall were to be built, would it be constructed out of cinder blocks, not the typical Home Depot Windsor block. Herron said it would be in character with the neighborhood if constructed. Additional discussion began on the lack of rail on the front porch. Herron stated that they had decided not to install railings on the porch and showed the Commission examples of homes in the area without porch railings. Herron also acknowledged that the height of the porch was being designed so railings would not be required by code. Page 17 of 20 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 1410,1416 Commerce Street MINUTE RECORD Commissioner Walls pointed out that trying to replicate something might make it appear to be inappropriate. Jeff Horton had general questions regarding rail heights and codes. Commissioner Newbern mentioned interesting ways that railings had been done in the past. Commissioner Newbern began a brief discussion about the materials for the hand railings along the porch steps. Herron said they believe that they would be painted wood rails with wood steps. Mrs. Herron asked if Metal Clad windows were appropriate. Commissioner Serebrov asked Commissioner Walls if metal clad windows would be acceptable. He responded, "Yes, since it was new construction." The Commission agreed. Commissioner Newbern initiated a review of the application, with an intervening discussion on the placement of the air conditioner units. It was agreed that they could be hidden by moving them closer to the nearby south -east corner of a projecting wall. She stated that the approved wooden fence would be six feet tall, dog eared, and have no stain or paint. The windows would be one over one or two over two with simulated divided light, metal clad windows. The front door of the home would be wooden; brick will be modular size; windows with simulated divide light will be as specified on the elevation plans; air conditioner units will be shielded from view by moving condenser units closer to an inside corner of the building; and all other materials and designs will be as specified in the application, including possible sidewalks and retaining walls. Any window changes would need to be submitted to staff. Commissioner Serebrov moved for approval of the application as presented (see summary above). Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion passed 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. FINAL APPROVED COA CONDITIONS Approved as filed with the following clarifications /conditions: 1. Front setback would be 25 feet from the sidewalk. 2. Permission to build similar retaining wall if needed on the site not to be constructed out of split face style cinder blocks (subject to staff review). 3. Approval of the concrete parking space accessed off the alley. 4. Approval of the breezeway design as submitted. 5. Wood fencing shall be 6' wood dog -eared fence with no stain or paint applied. The fence should be constructed as indicated on the plan +/- several feet. 6. The air conditioner unit(s) be shifted forward and towards the inside corner created by the exterior walls of the house to provide screening. 7. Brick to be used on chimney and foundation be modular brick size. Page 18 of 20 8. Approval of one over one double hung metal clad windows as described on the plan or one over one double hung windows with simulated divided light. Inoperable windows approved as filed. 9. Painted hand railings on the front porch and wood steps accessing the front porch. 10. A wooden front door on the eastern facade. Page 19 of 20 V. Other Business Staff presented the bylaws to the Commission. Commissioner Serebrov made a motion to accept the bylaws, Commissioner Walls seconded. The revised bylaws were approved 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. A brief discussion began regarding the future meetings and possible conflicts with the Planning Commission and C.A.M.P. Commissioner Tatum made a motion was made to defer amending the Calendar to the next hearing, Commissioner Peters seconded. The motion was approved 5 yes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Page 20 of 20