Loading...
HDC_09 01 2005DEPARTMENT 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 Thursday, September 1, 2005, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern (Chair) Marshall Peters (Vice Chair) Wesley Walls Job Serebrov Members Absent: Kay Tatum Deputy City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Charles Bloom Brian Minyard (Intermittently) II. Approval of Minutes a. Addition to February 12, 2004. Commissioner Peters moved for approval of the Minutes noting minor several typographical errors to be corrected by staff Commissioner Walls seconded. The minutes were approved. 3 yes 0 noes, 1 abstaining, 1 absent. Job Serebrov abstained. b. Addition to July 7, 2004 Commissioner Walls asked staff what the addition was to these minutes. Staff Member Charles Bloom noted that the addition was to clarify the record regarding the 1301 Cumberland application. Commissioner Walls moved for approval of the Minutes noting minor several typographical errors to be corrected by staff. Commissioner Peters seconded. The minutes were approved 3 yes 0 noes, 1 abstaining, 1 absent. Job Serebrov abstained. c. October 7, 2004 Commissioner Peters moved for approval of the Minutes noting minor several typographical errors to be corrected by staff. Commissioner Walls seconded. The minutes were approved 3 yes 0 noes, 1 abstaining, 1 absent. Job Serebrov abstained. d. August 4, 2005 Commissioner Serebrov moved for approval of the Minutes noting minor several typographical errors to be corrected by staff. Commissioner Peters seconded. The minutes were approved 4 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. None IV. New Certificates of Appropriateness 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: September 1, 2005 APPLICANT: John Jarrard, Freida Tirado ADDRESS: 519 East CapitolAvenue, Little Rock, AR 72202 (Rainwater.Flati) COA REQUEST: Add a three-story elevator to the south f fade, install storm windows, re point brick, replace inappropriate windows, and repaint. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 519 East Capitol Avenue. The property's legal description is "The West 75 feet of the East 150 feet of N1/2 of Trapnall Block of Stevenson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house is a circa 1915 Craftsman Apartment building. Originally built as apartments it has been converted to a present day office use. The applicant has indicated that the intent of this project is to return the structure to residential use. The property at 599 East CapitolAvenue. Its historical name is the "Rainwater Apartments" and it is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style became the most common architectural style in America in the early part of the 20"' century and often coupled with the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized by irregular plans with low- pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers. Prominent features of this building are the low tile pitch roof, symmetrical design, brick and stucco exterior, wood windows, and brick chimneys. ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD ANALYSIS: The applicant has proposed minor renovations to the exterior of the Rainwater Apartments building as part of its conversion into condominiums. Staff is excited about this property being converted into a residential use once again. Over time the exterior character of this building has been. preserved with the exception of a stairway addition that was added in the late 1970s before the establishment of the Little Rock Historic District Commission. This previous addition is highly visible from 6`h Street. Staff believes that the current addition is not in South facade of the building. The slainitell addition on the south character with the district and feels that any facade of the builrliq of the building has triangular windows. change to it may be beneficial to the district. The applicant has indicated that they propose to add an elevator shaft that will extend approximately ten feet from the existing facade of the stairway. The Design Guidelines state that the most appropriate location of additions to the structures is the rear facsade. This addition will cover the existing triangular window pattern and add the opportunity for better window design. The applicant has indicated that the new south facade of that part of the building will match adjacent patterns on the exterior of the building. The applicant proposes that the existing stucco pattern will be continued on the new addition. Also to be continued will be the wood siding and replicated by using beaded board. The applicant has indicated that the new roofing material on the addition will match the existing roof. The existing roof closest to the addition is an asphalt shingle roof. Two different colors of asphalt shingle roof are next to the addition: black and red. Since the roof pitch of the addition is low, the colors may not have much of an influence on the building's character. New windows will be included on the new addition. The new windows will be mostly four foot by five foot wood casement windows to match existing windows on the structure and feature divided lights as illustrated by the elevation plan. The Design Guidelines state that windows should not have "snap on or flush muntins." Simulated divided light windows may be more in character with the neighborhood. The windows along the elevator shaft on the second and third floors will be non operable, larger in size. Although these windows are larger in size they allow for the installation of a glass elevator inside and increase the view to the outside parking area. The difference in size could result in an appearance of non - symmetry but could be considered an improvement from windows presently located on the facade. The applicant has indicated that they are doing basic repairs to existing window sashes to match existing window sashes. The Little Rock Historic District Commission does not ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD regulate repair work as long as the same materials are used. Staff encourages the applicant to contact staff if the repair work alters in scope and materials. As part of the upgrade and repairs to existing windows on the building the applicant has indicated that twelve existing steel windows will be replaced with wood windows. The addition of wood windows to east facade may improve the overall appearance of the structure. Storm windows are to be installed over the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state that "storm windows should be wood or baked -on or anodized aluminum an fit within the window frames." The guidelines also emphasize that storm windows should not overlap the frames. Staff contacted the applicant to gather details regarding the storm windows and the applicant indicated that they would be anodized aluminum and white in color. With this new addition the applicant is adding a handicap ramp to provide easier access to the elevators. This handicap ramp has prompted a relocation of the existing stairwell to the basement. The new stairwell will utilize the same door and is necessary to provide accessibility to the structure. Proper railing heights, tread heights, and railing requirements will be determined when permits are issued. Existing stucco on the building is currently painted tan. The applicant intends to paint Existing Stairway leading to basement to be replaced. the new stucco a similar color to blend in g to basement to be replaced. with the rest of the building. Although the Little Rock Historic District Commission does not regulate paint colors, they do regulate materials that can be painted. Since the existing stucco has been painted before, new paint may not harin the building's historic character. However, painting of the brick on the building is not encouraged since most paints provide limited breathability, which results in water being trapped in the masonry. The trapped moisture will be subject to the expansive forces of freezing and thawing eventually causing the brick to deteriorate rapidly.' The final part of the application regards maintenance to the exterior brick and mortar. Use of a hard mortar or Portland Cement for repointing could cause damage to the building. Most appropriate mortar repointing should be done with soft line cement and by a skilled mason. Brick and mortar on the southeast corner of the building 1 http://www.masonry-restoration.com/paint-stripping.htm ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no coimments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the pro)ect as filed with the following conditions. 1. Simulated divided light windows do not have snap in, or flush muntins. 2. No brick on the exterior of the building be painted. 3. No chimneys are to be removed. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 Staff member Charles Bloom made a brief presentation describing the application and noting all staff recommendations. Mr. Bloom noted that staff was in support of the addition to the rear of the building. Mr. Bloom also state that the applicant had proposed to repair existing wooden windows on the structure and noted that staff did not support any new windows that had snap in muntins. Staff noted that appropriate notice had been given to surrounding properties regarding this application. The applicant Freida Tirado and her agent John Jarrard were present. Jarrard noted that this was one of three buildings in the Rainwater area (which includes the Caroline Apartments). Jarrard noted that the reason for the addition of an elevator is to allow the unit be converted back into apartments. He noted that the conversion to office was done in the late 1970's. He also noted that windows in the elevator shaft could not be wooden because of fire code. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification on the fire code. Jarrard stated that the elevator shaft would meet a "one hour rating." He explained that if a fire were to start it would take one hour for a fire to either enter or leave the shaft. It would supply a safe haven for residents trying to escape a fire. Mrs. Tirado added that elevator itself would have glass windows and one could see in and out of the shaft. Commissioner Walls commented that the design was nice. Mr. Jarrard noted that they did not mention in the application that they wanted to take down the bars on the windows. He comtented that the bars made it look like a "prison." He noted that they were probably installed in the late 1970's. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification of the bars' location. Jarrard stated that they were located over doors and windows. Mr. Tirado stated "everywhere." They also added that the bars are located on the inside of the windows. Commissioner Serebrov asked how similar this building would be to the new Rainwater ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD building next door. Mrs. Tirado said it would look exactly as it is today. Jarrard added that they would not be changing anything on the exterior except surface things on the Original building. He added that it should look basically as it is... "only better." Tirado noted that they would be painting the stucco to reflect something more elegant. She also added that it had been painted before. Commissioner Walls asked if the applicant was going to retouch and repoint the masonry around the windows. Jarrard said "yes" and they would be repointing /repairing to match the original. Jarrard noted that there are presently steel windows on the east facade which will be removed. The new windows will be designed to approximate what was there previously. Commissioner Newbern clarified that the application would need to be amended to reflect any additions to the application. Jarrard noted that the railings around the building (on the balconies) were 30.5 inches tall and were "real short." Mrs. Tirado added that they were "scary." Jarrard passed out a drawing illustrating the railings. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification on the railings' locations. Jarrard said the railings were on the balcony. Commissioner Walls noted that the railings were too short. It was stated that new code requires railings to be 42 inches tall for safety reasons. Jarrard added that the city would allow them to use a wider spacing (greater than four inches) between the balusters on the balcony because the railings are antique. Jarrard noted that the balusters were 5 inches on the center and the gaps were approximately 4.5 inches. Commissioner Newbern asked the applicant what they were proposing to do to the balcony railings. Jarrard stated that they would want to extend the railings up higher. Commissioner Walls asked if they would be modifying the existing railings. Jarrard responded "yes." Commissioner Walls asked if they would have to "be taken down to be modified." Jarrard stated, "yes." Commissioner Newbern noted that she has seen modified railings before. She noted that the railings she saw were designed in a way that one could tell that the top was an addition. This was done by not extending every baluster to the top. Commissioner Newbern asked why the applicant had chosen to have every baluster go up to the top. Jarrard stated it was required by code. He said that ultimately code would dictate the width of the railings. Tirado restated that they would be taking all of the current bars from the inside of windows and be adding storm windows to the building. Commissioner Newbern asked if the new windows would have simulated divided light. Jarrard noted that they don't believe that they will have to replace all of the windows. He added that they would try to repair the windows. He stated that if a sash needed to be rebuilt they would do it to match. Jarrard added that in the addition there would be fake ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD divided light. Commissioner Walls asked if his definition of "fake divided light." Jarrard stated that the inuntins would be on the outside and inside of the windows —not snap in muntins. Tirado and Jarrard noted the types of windows located on the building. Commissioner Newbern noted that the existing tear addition looked like an old sleeping porch. Jarrard said it was. Commissioner Newbern asked about what type of siding would be used. Jarrard clarified that they would be using beaded board to match the existing boards on the building. Commissioner Newbern commented that the roof pitch was low and similar to the existing. Jarrard agreed. She clarified that the new roof would be asphalt shingles and match one of the existing colors. Commissioner Newbern asked if the storms would have screens. Jarrard responded "yes." Commissioner Newbern then asked if they would be half or full screens. Jarrard responded "half." Commissioner Newbern said that the Commission discouraged half screens. Jarrard and Tirado responded that they did not know where one could get full screens anymore. Tirado said that the storms were intended to add insulation. A discussion began on the difference between half screen and full screen storm windows. Jarrard noted that the screens would be less noticeable because they will be located on the inside of the storm windows. Cormmissioner Newbern asked if they would be on the inside of the double hung storm windows as well. Jarrard responded "yes." Jarrard clarified that the storm window glass will be on the outside, with a half screen on the inside, and then the existing window. Commissioner Newbern stated her concern on how the screen would appear on the exterior of the windows. Mr. Bloom directed the Commission to the Design Guidelines book' "Windows Section ". Commissioner Newbern read the relevant guideline verbatim. Commissioner Walls commented that the glass on the exterior of the storm would be complete. Jarrard noted that the screens would be on the inside. A discussion began on how storm windows operated. Tirado noted that the screens would not be very visible and only visible from the adjacent building, which had similar storm windows. Commissioner Newbern stated that the storm windows covering the double hung windows are not on the primary facade. Commissioner Newbern asked what material the storms would be made out of Jarrard said they would be painted on metal and whatever color goes with the overall scheme of the building. Commissioner Newbern asked if the railings for the handicap ramp would imitate historical railings. Jarrard said "no." ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 519 East Capitol Avenue MINUTE RECORD Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification on mortar repairs. Jarrard stated that they would be compatible with existing mortar and match it in color. Commissioner Newbern asked additional questions on the relocated stairway on the rear of the property and the handicap ramp. Jarrard said they would be turned around and roughly in the same location. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification of what would be painted. Jarrard responded "wood." Commissioner Newbern asked if they would be painting brick. Tirado replied, "No, brick is beautiful." Commissioner Newbern asked the Commission if there were any additional questions regarding the application. Commissioner Newbern clarified the Certificate of Appropriateness application and summarized what was to be done as follows: Add a three story elevator, install storm windows, repoint brick, replace inappropriate windows with appropriate windows, repaint wood and stucco, remove the window and door bars, modify the existing railings to bring them to code. The applicants noted that they would amend their application to include the items mentioned above. Commissioner Walls made a motion to accept the COA as amended with all staff recommendations. Commissioner Peters seconded. The motion carried 4 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent. V. Other Matters a. Calendar Amendment Staff made a brief presentation noting that the Calendar date was in conflict with the Planning Commission Meeting. Staff also noted that November 3 was in conflict with the Commissioner training session. Staff mentioned that the Sister Cities' Conference Room would be available on Friday November 11, and recommended that specific date for the hearing. Commissioner Serebrov moved for approval of the Calendar Amendment. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion carried 4 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. b. Korean War Memorial A brief discussion began regarding the area of influence surrounding an upcoming application, the Korean War Memorial. Since the application area is within MacArthur Park and not within 150 feet of adjacent notification of all nearby properties would only result in the applicant notifying himself. Commissioner Serebrov made a motion stating noting that all property owners within 150 feet would be notified, the applicant should post two COA application signs on the property (one facing 9 ", the other facing McMath), and staff would send a courtesy notice to the Aesthetics Club and relevant organizations. Commissioner Peters seconded. The motion carried 4 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. c. Enforcement Issues Staff noted the Enforcement Items for the September meeting. Staff noted one was new, 504 East Sixth Street); and others have sat on the list previously. Staff member Bloom noted that the sign erected at 420 East 9 "' Street had been removed possibly resulting from a conversation with the property's Real Estate Agent. The Commission stated their great dissatisfaction with enforcement of the items. Staff has mentioned that they would continue to persue enforcement items. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm. Attest: Chairman Date