Loading...
HDC_03 04 2021Page 1 of 15 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, March 4, 2021, 5:00 p.m. Grant Still Ballroom, Robinson Center Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Robert Hodge Christine Aleman Mark Hinson Members Absent: Lauren Frederick Amber Jones City Attorney: Shawn Overton Staff Present: Brian Minyard Jamie Collins Walter Malone Citizens Present: Lena Gabrahana Victor Gabrahana Katherine Adams Lindsey Allen Ralph Wilcox Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the January 6, 2021 minutes as amended. Commissioner Mark Hinson seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Jones). Upon Vice Chair Holder’s request, Staff committed to research the discussion on whether a voice vote was sufficient or if a roll call vote was required. Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online. Page 2 of 15 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. IV 1. DATE: March 4, 2021 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 30 Edgehill Road FILE NUMBER: NR2021-001 REQUEST: Nomination of the Franke-Watson House to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 30 Edgehill Road. The property’s legal description is “Lot 30 of the Edgehill Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Location of Franke-Watson House Page 3 of 15 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Franke-Watson House to the National Register. From the nomination: “The Franke-Watson House is a French and Colonial Revival inspired home with rusticated limestone walls, on an approximately one-acre lot overlooking the Arkansas River and the city of Little Rock. … A separate 350 square foot staff cottage is connected to the main house by a garden wall. … The roof material is green flat clay tile. Part of the roof is hipped but the major elevations give an appearance of a modified mansard, as result of three large flat areas at the rooftop. Several chimneys and dormers punctuate the roof. The house's windows are a combination of casements and double-hung with cut stone sills and operable shutters. “The Franke-Watson House has several landscape features around the property which contribute to its significance. Small retaining walls and steps matching the limestone of the house align with the front entrance across the front driveway. Additional limestone walls and gateposts are on the east and west ends of the staff cottage. In the rear yard, curved sandstone retaining walls and steps are designed to match rear walls of adjacent properties. Exterior lighting includes two free-standing pole-mounted lanterns. “The Franke-Watson House, which was built in 1936-1938 and designed by the prominent architects Max F. Mayer, and Wittenberg and Delony (working drawings) of Little Rock, Arkansas, is an outstanding example of French and Colonial Revival influences on large-scale revivalist domestic architecture of the mid-1930s. Built for bakery products and food services executive Charles A. Franke and his wife Irene, the home is an imposing presence in the Edgehill residential neighborhood of Little Rock. Its scale, adjacent staff cottage, and series of lawns and walls gives it an estate-like quality. Its steeply-pitched tiled roof, evidences of symmetry, and rusticated stone walls show considerable evidence of French influence; though the organization of the plan and its adaptation to the site shows an inventive interpretation of that stylistic influence by the architect Max Mayer. Because it is an imposing example of Colonial Revival and French influences interpreted by the noted regional architect Max Mayer, the Franke-Watson House is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C. The significance of the house is strengthened by the fact that its historic integrity is unmatched by any other house in the Edgehill neighborhood.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C which is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Page 4 of 15 COMMISSION ACTION: March 4, 2021 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, did not have anything to add to the presentation. Lindsey Watson Allen, 30 Edgehill, gave information on the house. She stated that the Watson family has owned and protected the house for sixty years. She appreciates the State and city support for this nomination and also appreciates the work that the HDC does. She asked for support on this item. A motion was made to support the nomination by Commissioner Mark Hinson and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman and was approved with a vote of five ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Jones). Page 5 of 15 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. IV 2. DATE: March 4, 2021 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 2005 S Spring Street FILE NUMBER: NR2021-002 REQUEST: Nomination of the Reutlinger House to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 2005 S Spring Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 2, Block 11 of Fulton’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Location of the Reutlinger House Page 6 of 15 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Reutlinger House to the National Register. From the nomination: “The Reutlinger House is located at 2005 South Spring Street in Little Rock, within the boundaries of and a contributing resource to the Governor’s Mansion Historic District in residential downtown Little Rock. This two-story Dutch Colonial Revival house is built on a brick foundation and has a full-width porch and wooden weatherboard siding. It has a front-facing gambrel roof with a cross gambrel. … The property is in excellent condition, with some renovation and expansion occurring after a January 1999 tornado that hit the Governor’s Mansion Historic District and did significant damage to the house. “The Reutlinger House is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C for its embodiment of the Dutch Colonial Revival style as designed by renowned architect Charles L. Thompson. Thompson and his firm were highly regarded and built over two thousand buildings, successfully adjusting to changing styles over the years. The Reutlinger House is an example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style that was popular in the second stage of his career around the turn of the twentieth century, with numerous examples being found throughout the Governor’s Mansion Historic District.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C which is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: March 4, 2021 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item including the fact that it was a contributing resource in the Governor’s Mansion Historic District. No citizens spoke on the item. A motion was made to support the nomination by Commissioner Mark Hinson and was seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was approved with a vote of five ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Jones). Page 7 of 15 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: March 4, 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 8 of 15 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 9 of 15 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 the 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 of 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 10 of 15 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 noting 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 three. 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 filed, she had to 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 11 of 15 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. Sh e 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 Russel 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 Russel 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. STAFF UPDATE: March 4, 2021 Staff met with the applicant on Friday January 15th on site at 900 S Rock Street. On January 25, 2021, Staff received an email stating that she was amending her application with the removal of the columns and her application to read “vinyl siding replaced with real wood siding that is stained and sealed.” The posts have been removed from the porch at time of distribution of this agenda. Page 12 of 15 The new cedar siding was inspected and the width of the siding is very similar to the width of the vinyl siding that remains on the house. There were holes observed in the vinyl siding under the porch. The vinyl siding was installed in an overlapping fashion as traditional wood siding would have been. The new cedar siding has not been installed in an overlapping pattern, but has been installed flush to the wall. It is unknown if this siding is tongue and groove, rabbeted, or butt jointed. It is known that the siding is smooth on the surface and has a small bevel on the top and bottom of the board when installed horizontally. The image on the right approximates what has been installed with beveled edges. The Artificial Siding Policy was developed for applicants when adding vinyl or metal siding to their historic homes. It specifically does not apply to new construction. While this policy does not apply on the surface to this application, there are individual points that could be applied to this item. The policy is included in its entirety at the end of this report. The Artificial Siding Policy as stated in Appendix L in the guidelines states the following: In considering exterior changes, the Commission will weigh the needs and desires of the applicant with the overall good of the Historic District. While each application will be considered on its merits, the Commission will utilize the following guidelines in order to best implement its preservation responsibilities: 5) Restoration of original materials is the ideal method to be used in all projects; 6) Renovation using identical materials is the next preferred method of addressing exterior work to be performed; 7) Use of materials that were traditionally used with the Historic District when the structure was built is preferred; 8) Use of natural materials is normally preferred over the use of artificial or synthetic materials; While the artificial siding is not historic, it has not made the structure non-contributing. If the applicant had been able to find replacement siding to repair the siding pieces that had holes in them, this would have been a maintenance issue with staff approval. Replacing with matching siding would not change the appearance, texture or color of the exterior of the home. With the contrasting color of siding as installed, the question arises if the design, size, texture, material used, and outer appearance of the structure changed as referenced in the state law and city ordinance. There are at least two more houses on Rock between 9th and I-630 that have a similar plan with the turret. The artificial siding on the house at 900 Rock is similar in scale to the wood siding on the house at 904 Rock, 908 Rock, and 1112 Rock. Therefore, the artificial siding and the new cedar siding are similar scale to the historic siding on the street. The cedar siding is mounted flush versus the overlapped beveled historic siding. Since this is a natural material per number 8 above and is in scale, is it in compliance with the Guidelines? The question arises if the new cedar siding was painted or stained to match the body Photo of siding showing similar beveled edge. Page 13 of 15 of the house, would this conform to the guidelines and the ordinance? Since the Historic District Commission of Little Rock does not regulate color of materials, is this an issue? Referring back to the ordinance’s mention of design, size, texture, material used, and outer appearance, the design of the two sidings are the same horizontal installation. They are of a similar size. The texture is smooth on both. The material used is different. Replacing vinyl siding with wood of a proper scale would be in compliance with the guidelines. The outer appearance is not the same. Stained and sealed wood has a different appearance than painted wood. Staff believes that if the cedar siding was painted, this might not be an issue since the commission does not regulate paint color. In the past, Staff has written letters to every property owner in the district reminding them that they are in the local ordinance historic district. Also, staff has written similar letters to contractors that have business licensees with the City of Little Rock. Originally, they were mailed to window replacement companies, but the last correspondence was emailed to all contractors that do exterior work. Staff will commit to sending another round of letters to property owners via US Mail and businesses via email to connect with the property owners. Staff photo February 24, 2021 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following condition: 1. Obtain a building permit after the fact for all work performed on the house. Page 14 of 15 COMMISSION ACTION: March 4, 2021 Chair Russell made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicant tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. Ms. Gabrahana verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the application tonight. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that there were late photos that were submitted to the Staff this afternoon and he was unsure if they would be able to be displayed to the commissioners. The photos were displayed on the monitor and Mr. Minyard proceeded with his presentation. He summarized what has happened to the project since the last hearing and stated the staff recommendation. He also stated that he would send another round of letters to property owners in the district. He continued that there was an additional letter from the QQA and read the letter into the record. Lena Gabrahana said that she met with Mr. Minyard on site and came to the meeting in good faith. She referred to the article on artificial siding. She likes the variation in color of the siding and states it adds interest. Vice Chair Holder asked if she would consider replacing the siding around the door to match the gable. Ms. Gabrahana stated that she had wanted the flat siding around the door and did not consider changing it and stated the overlapping was for water runoff. Vice Chair Holder continued that replaced siding should look like the siding that was there. The new siding stands out now. Stained wood stands out versus the painted surfaces. Patricia Blick, QQA Executive Director, stated that the advocacy group had met and they recommended painting the siding. Mr. Minyard said that the Staff was unsure on when the stucco was removed or covered over. Chair Russell stated that he was generally in favor of natural materials versus artificial. Color and stain would not be the Commissions call. The horizontality of the siding is appropriate. Vice Chair Holder commented that if she resided the entire house, it would be fundamentally different. If it was an opaque stain, it would be okay. Commissioner Aleman asked for Staff recommendation. Mr. Minyard restated it. Commissioner Hinson stated that it was not his taste but and believe that the applicant has compromised on this project. Commissioner Hodge stated he had noting to add. A motion was made to approve as submitted with Staff conditions by Chair Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Aleman and was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noes (Holder), and 2 absent (Frederick and Jones). Page 15 of 15 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance HDC2021-001 506 S Ferry Arthur Cuen Porch Floor repair HDC2021-002 610 Rock St Conner Limerick Roofing HDC2021-003 314 e 6th St CAW Roofing HDC2021-004 507 E 7th St Mark Brown Siding decks stairs repair HDC2021-005 503 E 9th St Stephen McAteer conservation of pedestal HDC2021-006 1015 Scott St Taylor Douglas brick wall repair 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 4:47 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date