Loading...
HDC_01 07 2021Page 1 of 11 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 7, 2021, 4:00 p.m. William Grant Still Ballroom, Robinson Center Roll Call Quorum was present being six 6) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Amber Jones Robert Hodge Christine Aleman Members Absent: Lauren Frederick City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Walter Malone Jamie Collins Citizens Present: Lena Gabrahana Susie Taylor Approval of Minutes Commissioner Robert Hodge made a motion to approve the November 5, 2020 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Christine Aleman seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). There was a discussion on voting procedures during a virtual meeting. Director Jamie Collins clarified that the ordinance stated it needed to be a roll call vote with audio and video verification of each members vote. Page 2 of 11 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: January 7, 2021 APPLICANT: Lena Gabrahana ADDRESS: 900 S Rock Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-026 COA REQUEST: Siding and Columns PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 900 S Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “North 15’ of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1880. The 2006 survey form states: “this one-story Queen Anne style house has a corner turret, decorative brick work at the chimney and larger dormer set back from the wall below. A Craftsman influenced porch covers most of the front.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. Siding and Columns were added and changed without a COA by the HDC. This work includes changing the siding in the front gable and around the front door plus adding two columns to the front porch. RECENT ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On August 8, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new roof. On September 13, 2012, a COA was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new fence and driveway. Location of Project Page 3 of 11 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant changed two items on the facade of the house. They have changed the siding in the front gable and around the front door plus added columns to the front porch. Siding change: It is unclear when the house was sheathed in vinyl siding, it is not stated in the files. The addition of vinyl siding is not the issue of this application. The applicant either removed or covered over the stucco in the gable with a stained wood siding. This treatment was also completed on either side of the front door where vinyl siding was removed or covered over. This is a change in materials and appearance that requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Columns addition: The wooden columns were added to the front porch at the same time. These are solid 6x6 posts. According to the application, these posts are “two small cosmetic wood beams to have a clean esthetic.” These changes to the structure are required to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness before a permit is issued for the work. No permit was obtained for this work prior to the work being performed. This work meets the threshold to require a building permit. On page 27 of the Guidelines, it states: “New alterations should be designed to respect the original design character of the building. Analyze the structure to determine which elements are essential to its character, considering mass, size, scale, and proportion to the lots. Don’t try to make it appear older (or younger) in style than it really is. The genuine heritage of the District should be expressed.” Contributing and Non-contributing map Front facade as of December 9, 2019. Front facade as of September 14, 2020. Page 4 of 11 Columns were added where they would not typically be installed. The application states they were cosmetic, not structural. If there were structural issues with the span on the porch, it could have been repaired without changing the overall appearance of the porch by modifying the structural aspects within the box beam. Historic alterations, like the Craftsman inspired porch, have historic value. The craftsman porch on this house is a duplicate of many other porches in the city. Adding additional columns in the location that they were added is not appropriate for a Craftsman porch either. The painting of the brick columns are not an issue in this item. The brick has been painted for a number of years prior and repainting a previously painted surface would be considered maintenance. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: January 6, 2021 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and stated that all notices have been properly executed. He noted the contacts that have been received from the QQA and the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association since the item was distributed. Lena Gabrahana, the owner and applicant, stated that she had worked closely with the neighborhood association on this application. She had taken other structures in the area into consideration when she made the changes to the structure. She said that she was unaware that she needed a building permit for the work. She continued that some of the items on the house are historic and some are not. She tried to get replacement siding, but that type is no longer made so it was down to replacing instead of repairing. Ms. Gabrahana said it was not feasible at this time to replace all of the siding on the house. She chose cedar siding based on another house nearby. (Editor’s note: That house is new construction.) She said she did not remove anything historical, just the vinyl siding that was added later. She added the cedar beams (posts). She could not find a historical photo of the house and did not know if beams (posts) were there originally. Beams did not compromise structure and are purely cosmetic. Chair Jeremiah Russell asked the applicant if there was still wood siding under t he metal siding. Ms. Gabrahana said there was some wood siding under there. Some of it was rotted. Ms. Gabrahana stated it was not and the estimate was for $70-80k to replace with wood. Chair Russell stated that artificial siding, whether metal or vinyl traps moisture behind the siding and rots the wood. Chair Russell continued that the cedar posts are not appropriate to the style of the porch. If this had come to the commission as a proposal, the application for the posts would be rejected out of hand. Commissioner Amber Jones asked when the siding was placed on the house. Mr. Minyard stated it was sometime before 1984 when the commission started hearing cases. The 1977 survey Page 5 of 11 photo is hard to tell if it is siding or not. Mr. Minyard added that the issue today is the removing of the siding and replacing with other materials along with the addition of the posts. Commissioner Christine Aleman asked if the siding was articulated at the door. It was a choice to do wood or cedar accents. Ms. Gabrahana said that the siding was cracked all around the house and especially around the door. Ms. Gabrahana asked the Commission what typed of posts to add. Chair Russell said that nothing was there originally. Commissioner Jones stated the decorative element was the short brick post. Ms. Gabrahana asked what decorative element should be there. Chair Russell stated that nothing should be there. Posts are inappropriate on the craftsman porch. Commissioner Jones asked about the photo in the staff report. It was noted to check the dates on the photos. Chair Russell commented that the discussion should be whether or not the posts are appropriate and if the wood is an appropriate alternative to the artificial siding. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that the porch was not originally craftsman. He continued that the posts are inappropriate. Craftsman porches in the Quapaw Quarter are common. The improvements should reinforce the Craftsman porch. The wood in the gable is also inappropriate. Adding columns are confusing styles with the two styles that are already there There was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed. Mr. Jamie Collins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that she had stated she was for the application. Chair Russell stated that he disagreed with Vice Chair Holder on the wood only. Simply stained and not painted is okay. If posts were removed, he would be in favor the application. The Commission does not deal with color of materials. After requested, Ms. Gabrahana modified her application to remove the posts. Ms. Latimer stated that the other option was to leave her application as is, and if it failed, she had the right to appeal the decision with an attorney in circuit court. Again there was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed. Ms. Gabrahana asked about the process to remove her property from the historic district since it is not all original. Chair Russell stated that would not be an option. Mr. Collins stated that the house is contributing, even if it was not, it would still be in the district. The review would be required. Sherri Latimer, of the City Attorney’s office, agreed. Ms. Gabrahana confirmed her amendment to remove the posts from her application. Commission Jones made a motion to approve the application as amended and Chair Jeremiah Russell seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes, 3 noes (Holder, Hodge and Jones) and 1 absent (Frederick). Ms. Latimer confined that it takes 4 positive votes for an item to pass. Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Chair Russell voted to approve as amended saying the cedar was acceptable for Craftsman and Victorian houses even if it is not common. The guidelines state that natural materials are favored over artificial materials. Page 6 of 11 Vice Chair Holder stated it was inappropriate and cedar was not used especially in the pediments and something not common in Queen Anne or Craftsman in this region. Commissioner Robert Hodge did not believe that cedar as presented is appropriate adding that this moved the house into a modern style. The house already has a Queen Anne and Craftsman style and adding a third style is not appropriate. He added that this might be fine for houses outside of the Historic District. Commissioner Jones stated concern that this raw cedar siding is not seen in the Historic District on Craftsman houses in Little Rock. The material should be painted if it was to remain. She continued that this application could send confusing signals to new neighbors as to what they could do to the houses. She wished she would have known to get her permit. Commissioner Aleman stated she was in favor of the application. Her house has vinyl on three sides. Replacing the vinyl with wood is appropriate when the vinyl is cracked. Commissioner Mark Hinson said he was a fan of the cedar siding but could vote to approve with the posts removed since the applicant compromised on removing the posts. Chair Russell informed the applicant that the item failed and personally encouraged her to appeal the decision. Mr. Minyard started a discussion about expunging the vote to see if a different result occurred. The discussion then focused on expunging and deferment to see if Staff could work out some sort of compromise for the application with a meeting on site. Ms. Latimer stated that expungement should be necessary and for cause and Vice Chair Holder interpreted it to mean that if the Commission wanted to expunge, that was cause enough. Mr. Collins recommended that expungement be for the applicant to defer for Staff to work with the applicant. Commission Hodge made a motion to expunge the vote due to confusion of the applicant, cost of appeal. He clarified at the request of Chair Russell that it included to allow Staff and the Applicant to find a work around to the problem so that a successful application could be submitted by the applicant. It was noted by Chair Russell that this would be a commission deferral and costs of notification be borne by the Commission. It was seconded by Vice Chair Holder. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the application at the Commission’s request to the next public hearing for more information and it was seconded by Commissioner Aleman. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). Mr. Minyard stated that he would get in touch with the applicant to schedule a time to visit on site about the alternatives. Page 7 of 11 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. VII c. DATE: January 7, 2021 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide COA REQUEST: Pre Application Review process This item was originally a discussion item under Other Matters on the May 28, 2020 agenda. Staff is asking the question of whether the DRC should be performed by Staff only. If not, should the meetings be held when and where they are now? Should the membership in the DRC be expanded to all the members? DRC members likely will have more input in an item than non- DRC members and may have more information than non-DRC members, this could be seen as an issue. COMMISSION ACTION: May 28, 2020 Pre-application review discussion: Mr. Minyard stated that the Director of Planning and Development Jaime Collins would address the commission on this item. Mr. Collins addressed the Commission. Other boards and commissions that the Planning and Development Department staffs have changed their procedures. The department has become more technical in its review and in its ability to share information with applicants and the Commission. There is a question as to whether the Design Review Committee can review the documents and comment without a formalized meeting. Vice Chair Holder stated he was not sure what the question was. Mr. Collins stated that since the Commissioners were not voting at Design Review Meetings, in lieu of these meetings, staff could state if the application was complete and it could then be processed at the next level. He wanted to bring this item to the Committee for a dis cussion. This could be done on an as needed basis. Vice Chair Holder stated that the initial reason these meetings were held was to allow applicants to informally present their proposals. He stated that the meetings have been helpful. He agreed that the meetings could be held in a different manner, but upheld their usefulness. Vice Chair Holder stated that the purpose of discussing the eleven factors was not to determine whether if the application was complete but to discuss the design. The committee members do not make any decisions in the meetings. He does not know how they would do it any better than they do it now. Page 8 of 11 Chair Russell stated when the Design Review completed, it outlines the factors and the committee’s comments. Being able to sit down with an applicant and discuss their application, is a useful activity. Mr. Collins stated that with the required public notice and recording of meetings, the Design Review meetings could be held in a different manner. Nothing has to be decided today and he just wanted to open the discussion. The Planning Commission changed its Subdivision Committee meetings to a different style of meeting. That meeting used to occur after an application had been filed to check for code compliance. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked Mr. Collins to clarify. He stated that the Design Review meetings were to clarify that everything was complete after the application was filed, but could be held in a different format. Vice Chair Holder stated that these meetings were held before the application was filed with only a concept and that the committee could reply via electronic means. Formal notices have to be sent when the item is officially filed and placed on an agenda. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff has always given prospective applications feedback on items whether it be Historic District, zoning, etc. They were given pros and cons of their applications and instructed how to get through the process. The purpose of the Design Review meetings was to allow the Commissioners to participate in the review. Mr. Minyard stated the Commission they would add this item to the agenda for the next month. Chair Russell asked that we poll the individuals that have participated in the process and get their thoughts. STAFF UPDATE: January 7, 2021 The Design Review Committee (DRC) has met six times since the vote to initiate was taken in February 2018. The projects were: 407 E 10th for a rear yard shed 407 E Daisy Bates for a single family house 501 E 9th for the Arkansas Arts Center redesign 10th and Rock for condominiums 314 E 6th Street for awning repair 1414 Park Lane for a single family house Staff contacted the architects that had participated in the reviews. Staff has not received any responses to the email survey as of this writing. The email was also sent to QQA and CZDC. QQA responded and that response is included at the end of this report. From the October 9, 2017 HDC minutes: “The purpose of the pre-application meeting would be to have a public meeting (meaning that the press is alerted that a meeting will be held with two or more commissioners present) with the applicants, the applicant’s architects, designers, commission members, and staff to discuss upcoming projects on a conceptual level or preliminary design level. This has the possibilities of several positives. 1) The applicant can save design money and time by discerning what aspect of the project is of concern to the commissioners, 2) This can save multiple hearings on the same project that are Page 9 of 11 required by edits and redraws, and 3) This can build goodwill between the commission and the public by listening and working with the applicants in an informal environment. “The negative of this would be 1) the tendency of commissioners to design the project for the applicants, and 2) Some applicant may not be ready for their project to go public at the time of the pre-application meeting.” The creation of the DRC was discussed at the October 9, November 13, December 11, 2017 hearings. It was adopted at the February 12, 2018 hearing. At the October 2017 hearing, Frank Barksdale and James Sullivan of AMR Architects spoke in favor of creating the committee. Patricia Blick of the QQA also spoke in favor. Tommy Jameson, Kwendeche, and the QQA sent in emails to support of the DRC. One modification has been made to the DRC. The original consensus had a time limit per item. It was anticipated that there could be multiple items at one meeting. That has never happened. On October 14, 2019, that was changed to remove any time limit. The DRC felt that they would know when the conversation was becoming unproductive and the Commission agreed. The initial reason the DRC was formed was not to see if an application was complete. The DRC meets before an application is filed. It was to engage in dialogue between the Commission and the applicant before filing to reduce deferrals and to build good will with the citizens. Staff alerts the press to the meeting time and location. The dates are published in the adopted calendar. Staff is asking the question of whether the DRC should be performed by Staff only. If not, should the meetings be held when and where they are now? Should the membership in the DRC be expanded to all the members? DRC members likely will have more input in an item than non- DRC members and may have more information than non-DRC members, this could be seen as an issue. Staff has always met with potential applicants about upcoming applications. Staff cannot speak for the Commission nor can staff vote on pending applications. The DRC added direct input from Commissioners on items before they were filed. This happens in a conference room around a table which has a different feeling than a Board Room. The DRC meetings are scheduled on a Friday afternoon with three commissioners and Staff. They are scheduled in a different location than the hearings. An alternative would be for the DRC to have their meetings immediately after the monthly hearings in the same room. Would the applicant think the comments were binding if the meeting was held immediately after the public hearing? Would it be different with only three members instead of all seven? Another alternative would be to expand the committee from three to seven members. No changing the DRC is an option. All comments from the DRC are non-binding and no votes are taken on the proposals at the DRC meetings. COMMISSION ACTION: January 6, 2021 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission with topic to be discussed. Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Mark Hinson shared that he had gone through the process and it is critically important to have some way of doing it. He continued it was good to meet and get input of what was allowed. He received alternate opinions of projects from the DRC. Vice Chair Ted Holder commented that as a member of the committee, he thought it was beneficial. The committee is more that checking if it is a complete application. It is important for new construction. The only change he could see would be to have the entire commission on the committee. Commissioner Christine Aleman stated that it should be kept. It is beneficial but can get bogged down with too many opinions. Commissioner Robert Hodge said it was not a good idea for the full commission to be on the committee. He believes it could be less of a design review committee and more of a let us design your house before you file an application with more opinions. It is helpful to guide people to a better design by discussing the design factors. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that it should be kept the way it is. Chair Jeremiah Russell generally agrees thus far with the comments. He remembers when Commissioner Hinson and his wife came to the Design Review Committee before he was on the Commission. He thinks the DRC has been helpful but it would not be beneficial for the entire commission to be on it. Even with the three, the press is notified of the meeting. It is the first opportunity for an owner to present ideas and see if the commissioners see any red flags. The DRC is organized with the architect, the QQA representative, and one other. There may be other more experienced members on the commission, but the committee as organized, provides a detailed viewpoint. The DRC can accommodate the applicants for now with no change and thinks it is working. Later on, there may need to be some tweaks. Vice Chair Holder added that the Commission did away with the time limit earlier. There was no vote taken on changing the DRC, thus it remains with no changes. Page 11 of 11 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission Certificates of Compliance HDC2020 -034 11/9/2020 507 E 7 I Street roofing, soffit, and Gutters Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:24 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 2021.03.11 Secretary/Staff Date