HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_04 11 2011Page 1 of 21
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, April 11, 2011, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
(i) Roll Call
Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
Members Present:
Julie Wiedower
Randy Ripley
Loretta Hendrix
Members Absent: Marshall Peters
Chris Vanlandingham
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Cary Wilson
Mary Bray
Dick Kelly
Rhea Roberts
Paul Laubus
Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to amend the agenda to hear the new
COA’s before the deferred COA’s. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the
motion was approved with 3 ayes and 2 absent.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 21
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: April 11, 2011
APPLICANT: Joe Joyner
ADDRESS: 316 East 11th Street
COA REQUEST: Repoint mortar, brick replacement, and additional door
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 316 East 11th Street.
The property’s legal description is “Lot 7, Block 45,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The building at 316 East 11th Street is a ca. 1900-1910
Garage building and is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District in the
latest survey. (A previous staff report listed the use of
the building as originally built as a stable for the grocery
store at 1020 Rock.)
The proposal is to “Repoint mortar, brick replacement,
and additional door. The repointing of the mortar will
encompass the entire building, the addition of a door on
the east side of the building that will access the fenced
area of the property, and the top cap of the building will
be repointed as well.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On January 2, 1985, a COA was not approved for Lester Gaines for an alteration to the front of
the building.
On March 13, 2002, a COA was approved and issued to Jay Core for an addition to the rear of
the structure.
On September 22, 2006, a COC was issued to Jay Core of the replacement of the garage door.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Location of Project
Page 3 of 21
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The guidelines address masonry on page 57. They state: “Masonry walls of brick or stone
should be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling.
Professionals should perform the cleaning, using detergent cleansers or chemical agents. Care
must be taken not to introduce moisture or chemicals into the building. Paint should not be
removed if it is firmly attached to, and therefore protecting, the masonry surface. Brick should
not be painted unless it is extremely mismatched from earlier alterations or cannot withstand
weather. Repointing should be done with an original or historic compound, such as one part
lime and two parts sand, which allows bricks to expand and contract. Portland cement or other
hard mortar is not appropriate, because it can cause cracking or spalling. The appropriate
mortar should also match in color, depth, profile, raking, texture, and width.”
A brief description on types of mortar from the mc² Estimators Reference website:
“The five typical mortar mixes designated types M,S,N,O and K are labeled so because each is
an alternate letter in the term MASON WORK in descending psi strength. These designations
were assigned in 1954 and replaced the mortar designations A-1, A-2, B and C. The new
categories are: M (2,500 psi), S (1,800 psi), N (750 psi), O (350 psi), and K (75 psi).
Existing west elevation Existing south elevation
Mismatched brick over doorway Typical example of missing mortar
Page 4 of 21
“Know that a weaker psi mortar is not a "bad" or inferior mortar to one with a higher psi. A lower
psi mortar has much better adhesive and sealing powers than a higher one. Mortars are
selected on the balance between these attributes as to what is required for the building situation
on a particular spot in the job. A type M mortar with its high strength yet poor adhesion and
sealing can be a bad choice for one area of the job and just what is needed in another.
“Type K mortar uses a 1 / 3 / 10 mix and results in a mortar with but a 75 psi compressive
strength. Type K is useful only in historic preservation situations where load bearing strength is
not of importance and the porous qualities of this mortar allows very little movement due to
temperature and moisture fluctuations. This aids in prolonging the integrity of the old or even
ancient bricks in historic structures.
“Plus, these proportions always refer to volumes, not to weight or a combination of volumes and
weights. But then, the components of these mixes are usually purchased by weight but that's
not how the mixes are measured. Portland cement - 1.93 cubit feet, Hydrated lime - 5.79
cubit feet, and Sand - 19.29 cubit feet.”
The mortar on the visible southern and western facades has numerous areas that are in dire
need of being repointed in addition to the general lack of mortar in the joints. There is evidence
of poor mortar repair work that needs to be corrected. There are bricks that don’t match the
exterior that are located above the entry door on the south façade. Staff spoke with the
contractor and he stated that he would obtain mortar from the interior of the building and closely
match that mortar for the exterior repointing. That option is the preferred method.
This application is for repointing brick and some replacing of mismatched brick with bricks to
come out of new doorway to east. This application is not to reconstruct walls or any parts of
walls. Any reconstruction of walls will be in violation of this COA and will be subject to
enforcement.
A 36” by 9’ door is
proposed to be placed
on the eastern façade
of this building. It is to
be steel framed with
one large glass panel.
It will sit inside the
fenced area and will not
be readily visible to the
street view. Removed
bricks will be saved and
used as necessary to
repair deteriorated or
unoriginal brick from
previous repair jobs at
the buildings front
entry.
Location of proposed door
Page 5 of 21
This application does not include any signage for any non-residential use. The owner will be
required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the use.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit for exterior renovations.
COMMMISISON ACTION: April 11, 2011
There was a discussion between the Vice Chair Loretta Hendrix, Brian Minyard, and Joe Joyner
concerning his options to defer the application. He decided to have the hearing at this time.
Mr. Minyard made a presentation to the commission with staff recommendation. He noted that
the cover letter state a home business. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit
for a home business and will be heard on May 19, 2011 at the Planning Commission.
Mr. Joyner stated that they planned to return tot building to as close to the original state as
possible.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that it was a great building. Mr. Joyner’s brick mason was
present at the hearing. Mr. Paul Laubus stated that he would hand remove bricks and save of
repair work at the building. She asked about the arch detail over the windows on the east
façade of the building and if they would have an arch over the proposed door. Commissioner
Randy Ripley stated that it would be consistent with the other openings on that wall. Mr. Joyner
said that they would like to have the arch detail over the door.
Commissioner Ripley asked for a clarification on whether they were keeping the windows. Mr.
Joyner stated that they were not planning to replace the windows. He continued that the bars
were on the inside of the windows and that they were escapable ones.
Commissioner Ripley asked about the roof. Mr. Joyner stated that the roof had been repaired
with a single ply roof. Commissioner Ripley then asked about the lighting and it was stated that
the lighting on the front of the building would remain.
Acting Chair Loretta Hendrix asked about the proposed door. Mr. Joyner stated it would have
one large pane of glass; it would be a hardwood door that was reused from another site. It will
have security glass and is a commercial door. Mr. Laubus stated that he would like to have a
cypress framing on the door. Mr. Minyard stated that it was not an issue.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application and Commissioner Ripley
seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent (Peters and Vanlandingham).
Page 6 of 21
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
DATE: April 11, 2011
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy
ADDRESS: 920 Scott
COA REQUEST: Fence, storm windows and porch screening
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 920 Scott. The
property’s legal description is Lot 7, Block 10 of the
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This building was built around 1870. The 2006 survey
form states: “A two-story Italianate house exhibits many
details such as the hooded full arch window centered on
the asymmetrical front gabled wing and grouped windows
with vertical mullions. It is one of several houses built by
SE Mandelbaum on this section of Scott Street for
himself and his family.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is partially a result of an enforcement
action. The screening on the porch was removed when
unauthorized work was executed on the front porch. The
fence work and storm windows are not part of the
enforcement issue. The proposal is to add fencing along
the 10th Street side and the north property line and to
move fencing near the detached garage so that all cars
can park within the fenced area.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 11, 2007, a COA was approved and issued to Russell and Teressa Murphy for a three
foot picket fence on the east and south side, back privacy fence and widows walk.
On December 7, 2010, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for the reroofing of the
structure.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Location of Project
Page 7 of 21
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
On page 66 of the Guidelines, it states the following concerning Fences:
Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following
property lines. They should be no taller
than three feet (36”) tall; pickets should
be no wider than four inches (4”) and set
no farther apart than three inches (3”).
The design shall be compatible with and
proportionate to the house.
Wood board privacy fences should be
located in rear yards.
They should be no taller than six feet
(72”), of flat boards in a single row (not
stockade or shadowbox), and of a
design compatible with the structure.
The privacy fence should be set back
from the front façade of the structure at
least halfway between the front and
back walls.
The proposal is to continue the three-foot picket fence at the front and south side of the house
along the entire width of the house on the south side to prohibit non-residents from loitering on
the steps of the house. There would be a gate to access the entry as shown on the plans. This
extension of the fencing is shown in red while the existing fence is shown in blue. This complies
with the guidelines.
Existing east elevation showing picket fence in front
(2-18-11 photo)
Fencing plan
Page 8 of 21
There is a six-foot solid privacy fence to the west between the house and the garage. The
proposal is to move the fence towards the street at the property line in the same plane as the
three-foot picket fence. This would allow all of the cars to park within the fenced area. It would
match the existing fence.
The applicants are also asking to add six foot privacy fencing to the north of the house along the
property line. This portion of the application does not require a COA because there is an
existing six-foot privacy fence between this house and the house immediately to the north. This
section will not be reviewed by the Staff of consideration on the COA.
On page 52 of the Guidelines, it states the following concerning Storm windows
Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do not
require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Screen and storm windows
should be a color to match the window sash paint color and fit within the window
frames, not overlap the frames. Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may
also be mounted on the inside of windows. Half screen and screen or storm
windows smaller than original window, are not recommended.
The proposal is to add storm windows to the entirety of the house. The metal portions of the
storm window would be a cream color to match the house and the sash lines would match the
original windows. The security bars would be removed from the windows if the storm windows
were approved. The applicants are asking for half screens and state that the full view screens
are not available locally. Staff states that full view screens on operable two sash storm windows
are available locally.
The screen on the front porch was removed when the porch was repaired and was not replaced.
The porch that is on the house now is not the original porch according to a period postcard.
Staff is supportive of not replacing the screen portion of the front porch. According to photos of
the porch taken before and after the repair work, the porch has been returned to the condition it
was before repair. The guidelines are silent on the screened porch issue.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
2. Install full view screens on storm windows.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2011
There was a discussion between the Vice Chair Loretta Hendrix, Brian Minyard and the
applicants concerning their options to defer the application. They decided to have the hearing
at this time.
Mr. Minyard made a presentation to the commission with staff recommendation.
Commissioner Randy Ripley commented on the half screens and why the recommendation was
as such. Mr. Brian Minyard referred him to the guidelines that state full screens are preferred
over half screens.
Page 9 of 21
Commissioner Julie Wiedower commented on the six-foot fence.
Acting Chair Loretta Hendrix commented on the fence.
Applicants Mark Brown and Jill Judy presented to the Commission. Mr. Brown stated that with
the liquor store across the street, they have issues of vagrants sitting on the stoop. This is not
conducive to keeping tenants in the building. They are asking for the 3’ fence to help alleviate
the issue. The six-foot fence will have an electric opener for automobiles. He continued that
the third part of the application was to ask permission to not put the screen porch back on the
front east-facing porch. He referred to an old postcard that showed a different porch on the
structure with no screened porch. The postcard showed a turned post.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower congratulated the couple for taking the property. Italianate
houses were often remodeled with craftsman porches in the 1920’s. She commented that she
was not concerned with not replacing the screen on a non-original porch.
Mr. Brown stated that it would be an additional $1,000 for the full screens with 57 windows at
twenty dollars each. He noted that they do not do make an arch top storm window for the front
façade second story window.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked the reason to install storm windows. Ms. Jill Judy
responded that first, it was for security and secondly, with 12 – 13 foot ceilings, it would make
the structure more energy efficient. They have installed energy efficient HVAC units. Mr. Brown
and Ms. Judy stated that if approved for storm windows, that the security bars would be
removed.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the trim around the windows. The applicants responded
that they had specified tan, but might end up doing white trim to match the new paint color.
They amended their application to have white metal on the storm windows.
The discussion focused on whether to require full screens on the storm windows.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that it would be okay to have staff decide if full screens were
required after the applicants checked for other suppliers to see if they were available.
Commissioner Widower had a discussion with the applicants to clarify the fencing proposed.
Acting Chair Loretta Hendrix commended the quality paint job.
Commissioner Ripley commented on the screened porch issue.
Mr. Minyard asked for some guidance from the Commission on the issue of the half versus full
screens. Mr. Minyard stated that he was not comfortable with leaving it to staff’s discretion, if
the commission was okay with the half screens to modify their motion to include half screens or
make the motion with all staff recommendations which would include full screens.
Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve with the conditions of a building permit and
with half screens on the windows. Commissioner Wiedower seconded and the motion passed
with a vote of three ayes and 2 absent (Peters and Vanlandingham).
Dick Kelly stated that he thought that the commission made the right decision.
Page 10 of 21
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: April 25, 2011
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1414 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: New Infill House
The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the April 11, 2011 agenda on February 22,
2011 via phone message.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of deferral.
COMMMISISON ACTION: March 14, 2011
A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to defer the application to the April 11,
2011 meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Randy Ripley. The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1414 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is Lot 9, Block 49, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This is a vacant lot. The former building, The Warner
House, was demolished earlier.
This application is for a New Infill House. It is similar to a
traditional shotgun house with an addition or bump-out to
the south side. There is no separate garage proposed
with this application.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Location of Project
Page 11 of 21
Montage of street view
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions on this site were located with a search of the files.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
As stated on page 63 of the guidelines: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the
existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
1. Shape: The shape and footprint of the structure is compatible with the surrounding
buildings. Shotgun houses are not as common as they once were in the city, but are a
compatible shape for infill houses. This house features a “bump-out” or what would have been
an “addition” to the structure (if this had been an historic house) on the south side where the
entry is located.
2. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is approximately 20 feet,
which is slightly less than the adjacent buildings. The width of the building is compatible
although less wide than the adjacent buildings on that block face.
3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a 9/12 roof that is similar to the
structures in the area. The gable ends will be to the east and west. The latest submittal shows
the roofing material will be corrugated Galvalume roofing with exposed rafters. The roof will
have eaves that are four feet deep. (Zoning code allows for 30” overhang. See “Placement on
the Lot on page 4 for further discussion.) The building has a flat portion on the roof that is not
compatible with the neighborhood. There are other buildings in the area (namely apartments)
that have flat roofs, but those buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more).
Proposed Elevations
Page 12 of 21
The roofing material on the flat portion of the roof is proposed to be membrane roof with parapet
walls. No detail of how high the parapet walls are was given. An option to remove the flat
portion of the roof and to be more compatible with the neighborhood is to place a shed dormer
over the entry originating at the ridgeline as shown below by the red lines.
Optional shed roof over entry bump-out shown in red.
4. Orientation to the street: The orientation of the building is compatible with the
neighborhood.
5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: The
proposed building is not incompatible. The front door faces east onto the street. The window
on the east façade is an appropriate size. The windows on the south façade, on the entry
bump-out, are small square windows. However, these windows will not be readily seen when
the house to the south is completed. There is a window on the main body of the house on the
south. The three windows to the north will not be readily seen because of the house at 1410. A
window on the north side closer to Rock Street would be desirable. There is not a front porch
per se; it consists of two ramps approaching the door under the 4’ overhang of the roof. The
door appears to be flush with the wall, not inset.
6. Foundation height: The new building will appear to have a two to three blocks high
foundation of concrete block with natural finish. This height of the foundation is lower than most
historic homes in the area, but is compatible.
7. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is 10 feet and is appropriate.
8. Porch height and depth: There is not a front porch per se; it consists of two ramps
approaching the door under the 4’ overhang of the roof. The door appears to be flush with the
wall, not inset. No handrail detail has been shown; however, if it is shorter than 30” in height, a
handrail is not required.
9. Material and material color (if brick—closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if
frames –matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding):
The exterior material of the structure is 10” wide Hardie plank lap siding painted and 24” Hardie
panel board and batten siding. Trim for the house is noted as 6” Hardie trim painted. The
submittals imply a three tone color scheme for the paint.
The windows are listed to be either Pella or Anderson, metal clad windows, silver-gray finish.
Casements are 3’x6’ and the awning windows are 2’x2’.
Doors are listed as exterior grade wood, dark stain finish.
Gable vents are noted at 2’x1’.
Page 13 of 21
10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner
boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size, The Hardie board trim around the windows
and doors is not incompatible with the area.
11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The proposal is to have a 25’ front
yard setback. The two buildings to the south have a 15’ setback and the two buildings to the
north have less than a 25’ setback. A 15’ front yard setback would be more compatible with the
block face. A 5’ side setback on the north and a 20’ side yard setback on the south are
proposed. The proposed eaves are 48” deep. Chapter 36-156(a)(2)a, states:
“Every part of a required yard, except as provided herein, shall be open from its
lowest point to the sky unobstructed, except for the ordinary projection of sills,
cornices, buttresses, ornamental features, and eaves, provided, however, that
none of the above projections shall project into a minimum side yard more than
thirty (30) inches.”
The north setback will need to be increased to 6’-6” to remove the requirement for a Board of
Adjustment hearing.
Walks to the structures were unnoted. The brick sidewalk on Rock was noted to remain with a
new segment of concrete to meet the existing walk to the north. The Drive will be of 1/8” gravel.
No mention is also made of what the material is on the walk from the parking area to the house.
Exterior lighting will be recessed cans at the entries. With exposed rafters on the eaves, a
question arises on how recessed cans can be “recessed.” Mechanical units will be placed on
the north side of the structure. Guidelines suggest that they be placed near the rear of the
structure.
They are not requesting the following at this time: Signage, guttering on house, satellite dishes,
fences, gutters (except on entry bump-out), or photovoltaics.
Overall, the proposed house is compatible with the area with the exceptions of the front yard
setback and the flat roof.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtain building permit.
2. Reduce front yard setback to 15 feet.
3. Increase north side yard setback to 6’-6” or file for Board of Adjustment for variance.
4. Remove flat roof from structure and replace with shed roof originating at the ridgeline.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2011
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that since there were only three present and
that since Commissioner Ripley would have to recuse on the next two items, there would not be
a quorum to continue the meeting. Page Wilson addressed the commission and stated that this
was a financial distress for him. It was discussed that he had sought one deferral on his request
already. This would not count as one of his deferrals.
After discussion, it was decided that staff would try to set a called meeting for April 25, 2011.
Publication deadlines for the legal ad, and booking a room was discussed. Staff would contact
all parties present to inform them when the meeting was set. Commissioner Wiedower made a
Page 14 of 21
motion to convene a special meeting as soon as possible, hopefully April 25, 2011.
Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent
(Peters and Vanlandingham).
Page 15 of 21
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO B.
DATE: May 9, 2011
APPLICANT: David Anderson & Allison Vandever
ADDRESS: 1418 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: New Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1418 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “the north 45’ of Lot 8,
Block 49 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This is a vacant lot. The former building was demolished
partly because of the tornado.
This application is for a New Infill House. The property
will be developed with two structures of identical size, the
front structure being used for office/studio and the rear
structure being the living quarters (1 bedroom and 1 bath
open plan design) surrounding a courtyard preserving the
existing elm tree. The project will require a hearing at the
Planning Commission for a Conditional Use permit for the
location of a home occupation in an accessory structure.
Montage of site
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Location of Project
Page 16 of 21
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On August 5, 1999, a COA was filed for the repair of the roof after the tornado. The COA was
not granted due to lack of information.
On January 6, 2000, A COA was granted for demolition to Raymond Rogers.
PROPOSAL:
Following is an explanation of a rainscreen from the applicant: “Rainscreen wood wall will be
set approx 4" off structure and spaced approx 1/2" in between each board, creating a screening
effect from the structure of the house. This technology allows wind to move in between and up
and down between the screen and the main structure to act as a multi-functioning wall system.
Some of the advantages include creating a wind break, a rain screen, and a thermal screen for
shading the main structure from UV and solar gain. It creates a similar aesthetic to board and
batten with the vertical breaks, and becomes a low maintenance, low risk siding. There are
moments where translucent screen is the interior finish, allowing daylight to pass through the
rainscreen it is diffused into the living area through the polycarbonate screen, allowing a
reduction in energy usage and creating a daylight system that is all encompassing. (photo 10
shows the spacing off the
main structure, and photo 11
shows the rainscreen with
polycarbonate wall behind it.
both of these images are
taken from the residence at
16th and Commerce, where
the rainscreen is horizontal)”
In essence, the rainscreen
sets off the wall and does not
provide total waterproofing to
the house. As shown in
Photo 11, tarpaper provides
the waterproofing for the
house. The photo shows
that the house cantilevers off
the foundation somewhat.
The house built by UofA architecture students at 1623 Rock utilizes this rainscreen.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
As stated on page 63 of the guidelines: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the
existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
12. Shape: While not typical, the shape and arrangement of the structures are compatible
with the surrounding buildings (based on a cottage with accessory structure in the rear.)
13. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building approximately 20 feet,
which is slightly less than the adjacent buildings. The width of the building is compatible with
the adjacent buildings on that block face.
14. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed buildings will have a 12/12 roof that is similar to the
house at 1410 Rock Street. The gable ends will be to the north and south on both structures.
The latest submittal shows the roofing material will be TAMKO Heritage Mountain Slate asphalt
shingles. (The earliest submittal had an option of metal or asphalt.) The roof will have eaves
that are 8” deep, which is slightly larger than the rainscreen detail. Staff believes that this will
Photo 10 Photo 11
Page 17 of 21
read as if the house has no eaves, which is more typical of 1950’s minimalist architecture. The
office/studio building has a flat portion on the roof that is not compatible with the neighborhood.
There are other buildings in the area (namely apartments) that have flat roofs, but those
buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more). The roofing material on the flat
portion of the roof is proposed to be Versico VersiWeld TPO in white (a membrane roof).
15. Orientation to the street: The orientation of the building is compatible with the
neighborhood. The proposal is to have a 15’ front yard setback and 5’-2” and 5-10” side yard
setbacks. These are compatible with the district and within zoning parameters.
16. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: The
proposed buildings are not compatible. The lack of windows on the front building’s front (east)
façade and the lack of windows on the north and south façade are not compatible. Homes in
the area feature windows on all sides of the structures, not just in the courtyard areas and
minimally on the front. A minimum to be considered compatible would be two windows on the
front (east) façade to be either ganged or hung individually. Window size would need to be at
least 3’ x 5’ vertical. A window would need to be installed on both the north and south
elevations of the front structure on the eastern half of the wall at least 3’ x 5’ vertical in size.
Windows in the district need to read as windows. Polycarbonate translucent panes behind the
rainscreen will not read as windows and cannot be considered compatible.
17. Foundation height: The new building will have a maximum of 22” high foundation of
concrete block with natural finish. This height of the foundation is lower than most homes in the
area, but is compatible. The foundation will be 34 feet wide and the structure will be 35’-6” wide
with and overhang of 9” all around. This could make the house appear as it is floating. This
would be the first infill house with this type of foundation to wall relationship.
18. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is approximately 9 feet and is appropriate.
19. Porch height and depth: The porch on the front structure is recessed into the building
and is approximately five feet wide. It will feature three or four full width steps constructed of
white pine in a natural sealed finish. The handrail at the front steps will be stained wood.
20. Material and material color (if brick—closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if
frames –matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding):
The exterior material of the structures are 4” wide white cedar planks. No information is given if
the material is to be sealed or stained. These boards will be installed vertically with a 1/2 inch
space between them. The rainscreen would be a first for the historic district. Using board in a
vertical fashion for sheathing is not new. Board and battens are simply vertical board of
different sizes for sheathing. While this is not typical, the use of this technology would not be
incompatible with the district. The finish of the boards would make a large impact on if the
siding blended in with the neighborhood.
The windows at the northeast corner of the front structure are to be Pella Designer
series wood windows with aluminum cladding in brown finish or equivalent. They will
feature three transoms over three wide and three wide over three awning for a 7’-6
”wide x 7’-6” tall opening. Other windows will be of a polycarbonate translucent panels
(plastic panels) that is located behind the rainscreen so that light passes through
spaces in the rainscreen as shown in the photo above labeled “Rainscreen front view.”
See attached Poly0210 information attached at end of report.
Page 18 of 21
Doors will be custom made with the polycarbonate translucent panels insert with white cedar
frames. The doors will be 3’-8” wide and 7’ tall. Trim on the doors will be between 8 and 12
inches painted wood.
21. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner
boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size, The Hardie board trim around the eves has
not been specified as to the width of the boards. There appears to be a trim board at the
corners of the structure and a horizontal band separating the gable from the wall sections.
22. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The setback of the proposed front
structure is in keeping with the setbacks of the two adjacent structures.
Fencing will enclose the courtyard and extend north and south to the property lies. This was
amended after the drawings were submitted. The fencing will match the white cedar rainscreen
and be four feet tall.
Walks to the structures will be of concrete pavers. The Drive will be of “grassctrete”. This is
similar to what is installed at the art center loading dock on the north side of their building, but
not exactly the same technology.
Exterior lighting will be recessed cans at the entries.
Mechanical units will be placed inside the courtyard.
The chimney will be a standard metal stove chimney.
They are not requesting the following at this time: Signage, guttering on house, satellite dishes
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
2. Obtaining a building permit.
3. Remove flat portion of roof and continue same pitch and materials as proposed on the
rest of the front structure.
4. Add windows to east, north, and south facades of front structure.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2011
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. David Anderson, the applicant
then presented to the Commission and stated that he did not oppose Staff’s recommendation.
He stated that he wanted a green roof, but the Staff recommendation of modifying the roof was
okay with him. He also stated that the addition of the windows was okay, but the house and
office structures focus inwards to the courtyard area. He stated that they could produce
drawings with the windows shown.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she drove by the application and thought that the tree
was closer than is shown. She asked how deep is the front portion of the office/studio building
and the answer was 8’ deep. He continued that there was a deck porch area to the rear. She
continued to ask about the polycarbonate and how did it read at night. The response was that
Page 19 of 21
at night it could glow as a light box based on how the panels were illuminated. The
conversation continued on how much polycarbonate was to be used in the project.
Commissioner Wiedower discussed the size of the living structure.
A discussion ensued on the windows. The Commission looked at the large-scale drawings.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that revised drawings would need to be submitted. The
windows on the east side of the office/studio structure have awning windows on the bottom of
the units and transoms above.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham asked if the front structure was for business. Mr.
Anderson stated that it was.
Further discussion was held about the windows and the sizes of the proposed windows to be
added to the structure. The windows shown on the front of the office/studio structure is a 7 1/2
foot square. Mr. Anderson suggested that he could add a 5’ x 7 1/2 foot bank of windows on the
front elevation and a 2 1/2 x 7 1/2’ bank on the north and south side of that building. Staff
commented that the addition of windows on the rear structure is not as necessary as adding
them to the front half of the office/studio building. Trim around the windows was discussed and
it was decided to hold the rainscreen detail back so that the trim around the windows would be
exposed.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the size of the siding. Mr. Anderson responded that it
was 3 1/2” wide with a gap of 1/2 inch. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the finish of
the rainscreen. It will be white cedar with a clear coat finish. Eventually, the boards will weather
out and become silver-gray. It is pest resistant. Commissioner Wiedower suggested that it be
kept 8” off the ground at least.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about switching the flat green roof to the rear structure. Mr.
Anderson stated that it was a sleeping loft and that it could not be a green roof.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about signage. Mr. Minyard stated that it would require a
separate COA for any exterior signage.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she was okay with resubmitting new drawings for the April
Meeting by 5:00 on March 21st. Commissioner Vanlandingham stated that changing the roof on
the front makes it more compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer the item to the next meeting for additional
information. Commissioner Vanlandingham seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, and
1 absent (Randy Ripley).
STAFF UPDATE: April 4, 2011
The applicant has resubmitted drawings with the following changes:
1. Removing flat portion of roof on front office/studio structure and extending the pitch of
the gable roof to the south.
2. Windows have been modified and/or added. The windows on the Rock Street façade of
the office/studio have been modified. Originally, it was a grouping of nine windows,
three transoms, three large windows, and three awning windows at the bottom. With this
change, the transoms have been removed. A window has been added to the north
elevation of the office/studio building with a transom above. A grouping of windows have
Page 20 of 21
been added to the office portion of the Rock Street façade with two large windows and
two awning windows below. No window has been added to the south façade of the
office/studio building. An opening to the open porch at the rear of the office/studio
building has been added to the south façade.
3. The new perspective shows the fence coming out to the property line to the north (and
the east elevation also shows it to the south.) See drawing at the end of this report titled
“Revised drawings of perspectives elevations dated 03-17-2011.”
An additional drawing shows where the polycarbonate wall system is to be placed is located at
the end of this report titled “Revised drawings of perspectives elevations dated 03-17-2011”. It
will be in both gable ends of the living structure and the north facing gable end of the
office/studio structure. Solid walls will be on the entirety of the north façade of the office studio
structure, walls of the living, office and studio spaces. The porch, located on the west portion of
the office/studio structure, will not have polycarbonate or solid wall, it will act as lattice. See
diagrams below. The green lines represent solid walls, the blue represents polycarbonate and
the red represents open air.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as resubmitted with the following condition:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2011
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that since there were only three present and
that since Commissioner Ripley would have to recuse on the next two items, there would not be
a quorum to continue the meeting.
After discussion, it was decided that staff would try to set a called meeting for April 25, 2011.
Publication deadlines for the legal ad, and booking a room was discussed. Staff would contact
all parties present to inform them when the meeting was set. Commissioner Wiedower made a
motion to convene a special meeting as soon as possible, hopefully April 25, 2011.
Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent
(Peters and Vanlandingham).
V. Other Matters
a. Enforcement issues
None.
b. Certificates of Compliance
One COC was issued for a temporary construction fence at Fowler Square Apartments
on the Seventh Street frontage.
c. Dunbar Survey Update
Staff has left message with Andre but has not heard back before the meeting.
d. Preservation Plan Subcommittee
There is a proclamation of the nationwide Proclamation of May as Historic
Preservation Month on May 3rd.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about if Parks has filed for COA amendment on the
fountain issue. Staff said that they had not.
e. Citizen Communication
None.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:10 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
Secretary/Staff
Date 0*
Page 21 of 21