Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_08 10 20091 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 10, 2009, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities’ Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Bob Wood Members Absent: Open Position City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Tony Bozynski Citizens Present: Sharon Blair Welch Kay Tatum Rick Redden James Meyer Karol Zoeller David Anderson Allison Vandever Cary Wilson II. Approval of Minutes July 13, 2009 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of July 13, 2009 as corrected. On page 23, fourth full paragraph, sixth line, remove the word “that” at the end of the line. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 open position. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. None DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: August 10, 2009 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy ADDRESS: 1004 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Remove siding and restore to original siding PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1004 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “the north 45‘ of Lot 10 and the south 5’ of Lot 11, Block 11, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Ratcliffe House was built ca 1886 in the Queen Anne Style and later converted to apartments in the 1910’s. The front porch was removed and sleeping porches in the Craftsman Style were added at that time. The 1988 survey shows it as a Contributing Structure and the draft of the current survey also shows it as Contributing. This application is to remove the cement siding and restore to original siding. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: In January 1996, a COA was approved for the “Removal of non -original sunrooms at front façade and recreation of original 1889 porch and roof configuration” to Myra Ash. This was not completed. 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 3 In June 1997, a COA was approved for the “Installation of Storm Windows” to Myra Ash, which was completed. The request for the soffits and fascia to be covered with vinyl siding and the window trim to be covered in aluminum siding was n ot approved nor completed. In October 1986, a COA was issued to Charles Witsell for the “rehabilitation of the old Ratcliffe house, which was converted to 6 apartments in the 1930’s. Work includes, roofing, painting, storm windows, interior fix-up and removal of added front sun porches and reconstruction of the original front porch.” This was not completed. Existing northeast elevation Existing west (rear) elevation PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to remove all of the cement siding from the structure and expose the original weatherboard siding. Any siding that is in need of repair due to warping, cracking, rotting, etc will be replaced with siding that matches the original. Siding will then be caulked, primed, and painted. ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Design Guidelines’ Artificial Siding Policy, Appendix I, states items relevant to this case: A. Siding original to the building should be repaired rather than replaced, only where necessary due to deterioration. 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: 4 1) The more historically significant the structure, the more concerned the Commission will be that the structure’s exterior appearance will retain its historic integrity and character; 2) The more architecturally significant the structure, the more concerned the Commission will be that the structure’s exterior retains its architectural compatibility; 3) The more visible the structure is from a public right -of-way, the greater the Commission’s concern; 4) The closer the structure is to historically or architecturally significant structures; the more the Commission will be concerned; 5) Restoration of original material 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 within 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; 9) Architectural detailing and fenestration are often the most important characteristics of a structure. For these reasons, the use of artificial siding on structures within the Historic District is discouraged. However, each application that includes the use of artificial or synthetic siding will be carefully considered by the Commission and particular attention will be paid to any special circumstances that may make use of artificial or synthetic siding prudent or necessary. Likewise, the application will be carefully scrutinized by the Commission in terms of the effects of the proposed materials on the structure’s style, historical integrity, structural and architectural integrity and the effect of the artificial or synthetic materials on the Historic District as a whole. The following statements are in reference to the nine items above. Statement # 3 - The east and north façades are the most visible from the public right-of-way. Utmost care should be taken on these facades to restore the wood siding to the original state of the home. Statement # 4 - This structure is next door to the Hanger House, located at 1010 Scott Street. The proximity of this structure to the Hanger House makes it o f concern to maintain or enhance the overall quality of the structures in the district. The condition of the wood siding under the cement siding is unknown. The applicant proposes to remove the cement siding and assess the condition of the wood and restore/repair/replace siding as needed. There are three scenarios to the restoration of the wood siding: Scenario A: Remove the cement siding and the existing historic siding is in great condition, needing only caulking and painting. Scenario B: Remove the cement siding and the existing historic siding is in good condition, needing some replacement pieces of siding and caulking and painting. Scenario C: Remove the cement siding and the existing historic siding is 5 such a condition that would require replacement of all of the siding with new wood siding that would be compatible with the style and character of the house. The new siding should be as close as possible to the profile of the historic siding. Care should be taken to respect the original vertical corner trim boards and any original decorative siding. Original vertical trim boards that separate additions to the house should be retained, not removed. This house was built as a Queen Anne House and fish-scale siding is still evident and exposed on the original tower located near the northeast corner of the house. Fish-scale siding is also visible on the northern dormers. That decorative siding must not be removed nor any decorative siding that is exposed during the removal of the cement siding. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were four comments in support of this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: On June 29, 2009, the applicant requested a deferral of this item to the August 10, 2009 agenda in order to obtain the abstract list. Staff supports the deferral request. COMMISSION ACTION: July 13, 2009 Commissioner Bob Wood made a motion to defer the item to the August 2009 meeting. Commissioner Julie Wiedower seconded the motion and the item was deferred with a vote of 4- ayes, and 1 absent. COMMISSION ACTION: August 10, 2009 Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to defer the item to the September 9, 2009 meeting. The motion was seconded and the item was deferred with a vote of 4- ayes, and 1 open position. Fishscale siding on dormers 6 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. DATE: August 10, 2009 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: Northwest Corner of 15th and Rock Street COA REQUEST: 2 houses at 15th and Rock PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1422 South Rock Street. The property’s legal description is Lot 7 of Block 49 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This is a vacant lot. This application is for a request to amend the existing COA for the new infill construction of one single-story detached home and one two-story detached home with development of Lots 8 and 9 to be reviewed at a later time. The single-story home is located on the west portion of the lot at the alley and the two-story home is on the eastern portion of the lot at the street corner. This application will review the single-story home first and then the two-story home. Since the 2006 review of this site, there has been construction activity in the neighborhood. In June 2006, permits were issued for two duplex struc tures at 1517 and 1521 Cumberland Street. In July 2006, a permit was issued for a single -family residence at 1520 Rock Street. In September 2006, a permit was issued for a single - family residence at 1518 Rock Street. In February 2007, three permits were issued for single-family homes at 301, 305, and 309 East 15th Street. This application will be required to go to the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for a Revocation of a PD-R for the three lots with a five-plex and creation of a 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 7 one lot PD-R for platting of the lots into two lots, both 50’ x 70’. This platting will divide the lot into two and prescribe setbacks on the lots. The PD -R will not review exterior finishes, scale, mass, roof pitch, etc. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On Jun 8, 2009, the Commission voted to reconsider the application for a single - story and a two-story house on Lot 7 with changes of siding and windows on the two -story house as described by the applicant. On May 11, 2009, the Commission denied a COA for a single-story and a two-story house on Lot 7. On November 13, 2006, a COA was approved for Page Wilson of Paul Page Dwellings for a five-plex multifamily unit on lots 7, 8, and 9 of this block. That project also included a zoning change to Planned Development - Residential (PD-R) that was approved by the Board of Directors on November 28, 2006. On January 7, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Raymond Rogers for demolition of a four-plex structure that was severely damaged by the 1999 tornado. Several other structures in the 1300-1500 blocks of Rock Street were demolished around that time because of severe damage by the 1999 tornado. PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed building two houses on the southernmost lot and split the lot into two building lots. These three lots ca. 1900 had a brick Craftsman two-story four-plex at 1422 and the Warner House at 1414 Rock Street that was a Queen Anne two-story house with wood siding. There was a building in the rear of the lots that is not pictured in the 1978 survey. The use is unknown but it appears that it Building footprints from 1978 Survey Current building footprints from GIS 8 was garages. The building straddled the property lines. The site of the application is shown in the center of the graphics above. The south side of this block of 15th Street had five houses that faced the street in the 1978 survey, all on the south side of the street. All five have been removed but the western three have been replaced with different single-family structures. To the east on 15th, more houses face the street instead of the north-south streets. To have houses that face 15th is appropriate for the neighborhood. Alternatively, if you look at the houses and carriage houses in the neighborhood, it is typical to have the main house in a rectangular solid facing the named streets (Rock, Cumberland, etc) with a square carriage house of one or two stories in the back. See the above graphic “Current building footprints from GIS” that illustrates the point. In th is proposal, the square structure is on the street corner while the rectangular structure is at the back of the lot. This is opposite of the traditional pattern. On the above “Site Plan for the two houses” graphic, please ignore the proposed bus stop at the lower right of the graphic. That is not to be built by the applicant and is not part of the application. This would be a separate application by CATA. Site plan for the two houses Elevations of both of the houses 9 SINGLE STORY HOME: PROPOSAL: The first portion of this application is for a single-story house to be built on the western portion of the lot at the northwest corner of 15th and Rock Street. The house will face 15th Street and will be a two-bedroom two-bath structure without covered parking. This structure is similar to the previous application. The south elevation has been recessed in the middle approximately two feet and the window arrangement has been changed with the addition of windows in the bedrooms. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 63: “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in t he neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) Plan of One-Story house 10 “New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: “The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The footprint of approximately 48 x 20 feet is similar to other primary structures in the area. There are two bays on the north side of the building that extend approximately four feet to the north. A change to this application is that the middle third of the building has been recessed approximately two feet. 2. Building Mass and Scale: “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15’ off the alley way as required by code. The front yard setback will be 15’ also, the minim um required by code. The height of the proposed building is approximately 25 feet, which is less than the buildings to the immediate west and southwest. Setbacks vary in the district, but overall, the scale and the setbacks of the building are compatible with the other smaller residences in the district. 3. Building Form “Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house, as described by the applicant, is a “Neotrot” (a new rendition of a dog trot.) The house is basically a rectangular solid parallel to the street with two bay extensions to the rear of the structure. The bedrooms are to each end of the structure with the public areas to the center. The center bay of the structure will be recessed approximately two feet. The stoop for the structure is shown approximately four feet wide. 15th Street Façade (south) 11 Roof: The 8/12-pitched roof is compatible with the surrounding structures. The extension of the roof plane in the rear over the utility room and back porch bays is not typical of homes in the area. These bays will be on the interior of the lot and would normally be marginally visible from the street if the lots to the north were developed. In the cover letter dated June 7, 2009, it states that a pellet stove may be installed, if desired by homeowner. No details were given on the location of the chimney or details of it. Windows: The applicant provided a south elevation for the structure and a floor plan. No elevations were provided for the east, west and north elevations. The window cou nt is derived from the floor plan alone. The outer windows shown on the south elevation are pairs of windows, which are appropriate for the district. The center windows facing 15th Street are not typical for this area. The window(s) have nine panes and are floor to ceiling windows. Historic homes in the area and new homes that do not disrupt the pattern of the neighborhood have more than one window per side of the structure. The current application has added windows to the side elevations of the house (east and west). They now show three windows on each side, two separate windows in the bedrooms and one in each bathroom. The rear of the house has the window arrangement changed slightly with one less widow in the utility room. Windows are shown in the kitchen on the north wall, but it is unclear exactly where the placement is to be. However, when development happens to the north of the site, it will be hidden from view of the street. Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18” above grade at the highest corner of the lot. This will result in an 18 -24” height at the front door or approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation level appears to be compatible with the district. 4. Building Materials “Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. ‘Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. ‘Details and textures should be similar to thos e in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)” 12 Siding: The horizontal siding of cypress shiplap siding will have a 6 1/4” reveal. There will be trim around the windows, doors, eaves, and cor ner boards, which is typical. The cypress siding will either be stained a soft neutral color or it will be allowed to weather to a natural grey color. Roof: The roof is proposed to be M- Cor Galvalume Plus 29 gauge by US Steel Co. This is a corrugated ribbed metal roof with zinc coating similar to the old style tin roofs. While the roofing material may have been used on secondary structures in the area, it is not compatible with the district for a primary structure. Windows: The windows in the house will be by Best Built, a wood window with a metal cladding. The windows will be double hung and casement awnings. The color of the cladding is rustic red. Foundation: The materials of the foundation or underpinning have not been submitted to the Staff. Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on the “Site Plan” graphic on page three. Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The parking areas will be to the rear and side of the house accessed off the alley. The parking pad will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only the pad. The fencing will be approximately four feet high with some additional height to accommodate the slope of the ground. The fence is to be located on the original property line only between the two lots. Photo of Galvalume roof. Elevation of proposed fence Gravel parking pad 13 TWO STORY HOME: PROPOSAL: The second portion of this application is for a two-story house to be built on the eastern portion of the lot at the northwest corner of 15th and Rock Street. The house will face 15th Street and will be a three -bedroom two and one-half-bath structure without covered parking. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 63: “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) “New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: “The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The footprint of approximately 28 x 28 feet is similar to other primary structures in the area. The house features an inset porch on the southeast corner. Historically, houses faced the 1400 block of Rock Street, not the side streets. The lots were originally platted so that the front of the houses would face Rock. With this house being square, it would be possible to run the sidewalk to Rock Street instead of 15th and have a Rock Street address. 1422 Rock Street from the 1978 survey 14 2. Building Mass and Scale: “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15’ off both Rock and 15th Street property lines as required by code. The height of the proposed building is approximately 31 feet. With the bulk of the structure and the flat roof, the building’s mass may appear larger than the surrounding structures. 3. Building Form “Basic building forms and roof shapes, inclu ding pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house, as described by the applicant, is a modern interpretation of a “Four Square.” The house is a square cube with a flat roof with a corner -recessed porch on the corner facing the intersection of the streets with the door facing 15th Street. It features three bedrooms and two baths on the top floor and public living areas with a half bath on the bottom floor. The applicant describes this house as a “modern four-square home.” Roof: The flat roof is not compatible with the single-family structures in the District. There are structures with flat roofs as indicated by the letter “F” in the graphic below. However, these structures are multi-family structures, offices, or renovated school buildings that are now multifamily. These flat roof structures are not single-family homes. The “M” notation is for the mansard roof of the Villa Marre. 15th Street Façade (south) Rock Street (East) Facade North (rear) Facade West Facade 15 The house is referred to as a “Modern Four- Square” by the applicant. The room arrangement and the square footprint fits the definition of a historic foursquare. A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester states that “This subtype, which is sometimes called the Prairie Box or American Foursquare, has a simple square or rectangular plan, low-pitched hipped roof, and symmetrical façade.” This structure, as proposed, fits their definition of a foursquare in size, bulk, and mass with the exception of the roof. The cover letters states that he “will not mimic the hip roof of the past, but instead use a flat -membrane roof to reflect heat, cool the city and use it’s gradient behind the parapet will to collect rainwater for the future.” The MacArthur Park Historic District has Foursquare houses. Most notable are the Johnson Houses at 514, 516 and 518 East Eighth Stree t. In the nomination form to place these structures on the National Register, it states, “Each house is a variation of the American Foursquare design… Following the Foursquare concept each house is two-story, square, and capped with a hipped roof.” The house at 1324 South Rock is another Foursquare house with steeper hip roof and 1008 South Cumberland is yet another foursquare house in the district. Each of these foursquares shares the typical hip roof. There are multiple (fifty plus) structures with hip roofs in the District, of various styles, ranging from the Colonial Revival to Queen Anne to the Ranch. A hip roof for a single-family residence is appropriate for the district. Windows: The window pattern on the structure has been changed for this a pplication but the windows shown on the elevation of this building are not totally incompatible with the district. The windows appear to be a combination of four -foot square windows, two- foot square windows, and two-foot by four-foot windows either horizontally or vertically mounted. No dimensions were supplied with the application, so all are approximate. Some of the windows are ganged together, which is typical of the area. The 15th Street (front) façade of this house features a recessed corner porch on the southeast corner with a two-story window to the left. The large mass of windows in the last application has been broken into three sets of windows. They appear to be two sets of four ganged windows that would be roughly 8’ x 6’ total area and one 2 ’ x 4’ on the second floor. The windows located on the second floor above the porch have been increased in size to two four-foot square ganged windows that are more compatible with the area. The Rock Street (east) façade features the other view of the re cessed porch and windows over the porch that mirrors the south elevation. In addition, on the east elevation, there are four other sets of windows varying from roughly 8’x4’ down to a two foot square. The north elevation has three sets of ganged windows while the west elevation has three sets of windows and the back door. Locations of flat roof structures 16 Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18” above grade at the highest corner. This will result in an 18-24” height at the front door or approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation height appears to be compatible with the district. “4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which h as the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. ‘Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. ‘Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)” Siding: The siding material has been changed to a “Hardie Board in a panel and lap display.” This fiber-reinforced cement board has been used on other new construction in the District, either as trim boards or siding. It will be painted a soft green color. Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat with a white membrane covering manufactured by GAF 45 mil thick. A small parapet wall will prevent view of the roof. The material used may be appropriate for the area for rear porches and the like, but the flat roof is not appropriate. Windows: The windows in the house will be by Best Bilt by National Home Center, a wood window with a metal cladding. Some of the windows are static, some with awning casement or sliders. The color of the cladding has not been specified. Cla d windows in new homes can be appropriate to the area. Foundation: No materials have been submitted to the Staff. Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on page 3 in the graphic “Site Plan.” Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The parking areas will be to the side of the house accessed off 15th Street. The parking pad will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only the pad. The fencing will be approximately four feet high with some additional height to accommodate 17 the slope of the ground. The fence is to be located originally on the property line only between the two houses. See earlier graphics for fencing details on page 7. There is a “Garden” shown to the northwest of the structure enclosed by a fence. This fence is not part of the application. It will feature raised garden beds. The site plan and the perspective graphic show a pat io located on the south side of the structure surrounded by a fence. The elevations shown and the floor plan are not the same to show where the door is to this enclosed area. Summary Analysis of both houses: The Guidelines state on page 63 that: “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings.” Staff has concerns over the design of the two structures proposed. On the one story house, the roofing materials chosen and the south façade center windows. If a stove or fireplace were installed in the structure, details would need to be provided to Staff of the chimney construction and placement. On the two -story house, the flat roof is not compatible with the district. The window placement, quantity, and size are not totally incompatible with the district. With modifications, the structures could be such that they “maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood.” As submitted, Staff feels that they do not meet the Guidelines. The applicant has asked for the fence approval only between the two houses. In an effort to save applications for fencing by the perspective new owners, Staff would recommend that the Commission review all fencing as shown on the site plan. To make the structures compatible with the district, Staff proposes the following changes to the two-story house: 1. Install a minimum of a 4/12 hip roof on structure with an overhang of 24 -30”. 2. Roof material shall be asphalt shingles or standing seam metal roof. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were five letters of support of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the changes were made as described above, the Staff could recommend approval of the two houses, but with the flat roof as proposed on the two-story house, Staff must recommend denial. COMMISSION ACTION: July 13, 2009 Brian Minyard, Staff, noted for the record that Commissioner Randy Ripley has removed himself from the dais to the citizen’s area of the room. Mr. Minyard made a presentation 18 to the Commission. He noted that all notices were given to the property owners for this item. During the presentation of the one story home, Chairman Marshall Peters asked him to clarify that the windows that are not typical for the area were indeed the ones in the center of the building in the recess. Chairman Peters asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Minyard stated that a four-foot high fence is compatible with the guidelines for the rear of a property. Mr. Minyard stated that at the time of the distribution of the packets to the Commission, there were five letters of support for the application. Since that time, the number of letters, emails, and phone calls has increased to 7 in support, 10 in opposition, and 2 neutral. Chairman Peters asked if Staff had samples of the materials on the structures. Mr. Minyard commented that he had a sample of the Hardie Board for the two -story house. Chairman Peters also asked what the height of the parapet was. Page Wilson gave a letter from Chan Tucker in support of the application to Staff. He introduced Rick Redden and Liz Hamilton from AMR Architects. Commissioner Bob Wood asked Page Wilson what the relationship was between AMR architects and Paul Page Dwellings. Mr. Re dden responded that they were the architects for Paul Page Dwellings LLC and spoke of past projects with him. He continued about the diversity of the population downtown and who the market would be for the new houses. He said that they designed the struc tures for that market. The dogtrot was designed to an agricultural vernacular. The two -story house was designed as a cube; a 28 foot square. Mr. Redden then went into some detail about the changes to the two -story house. The house will have 1x4” battens over the panel siding to add texture to the structure. He commented the flat roof was the most controversial portion of the application but the scales should not overpower the other buildings. Commissioner Wood stated that he drove over to the site and that there was a flat roof at 16th and Rock. Mr. Wilson commented on the sustainability issues in architecture. The neighborhood people do not distinguish between multi family and single family and roof styles. He commented that they wanted bodies in the area. He continued with price per square foot and overall prices for houses that would sell. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if there were elevations for the east and west facades of the one story house. Mr. Wilson said he did not provide elevation s. He continued that the siding was cypress. Mr. Minyard interjected and referred the commission to page 9 of the Staff report and pointed out the locations of the additional windows. 19 Commissioner Wiedower also commented on the pellet stove chimney. Mr. Wilson said that it vented to the side of the structure and would probably not install it. A discussion continued about venting through the roofs for all utilities. He amended his application to remove the pellet stove. Mr. Wilson conducted an internet search and found a historic district that had four square houses in Indiana with flat roofs and that there are lots of roof types on four squares. Commissioner Wood commented that it was a generous definition of a four square. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the rain collection aspect of the house. She asked if it was to be visible from the street. Mr. Redden said that it would be located on the north (rear) of the house. Mr. Minyard asked what the height of the parapet was. Mr. Wilson responded that it was between 12 and 20”. Chairman Peters asked what the height of the two -story house was. Mr. Redden said it was 10’ ceilings on the first floor, 12” for floor joists, 9’ ceilings on the second, with some foundation on the height. He said it was more like 26 feet tall on the tall side. Commissioner Wiedower asked if he was going to be responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street. Mr. Wilson said he has worked with the city on tree plantings or with Tree Streets. He will not do a complete landscape on the houses; the owners will do some. Chairman Peters asked if submissions were made on materials. Mr. Minyard said that he had a piece of Hardie panel to be used on the two -story house. Chairman Peters asked about the siding on the two-story house. Commissioner Wiedower asked if it would be screwed on or nailed. Mr. Wilson said that it would be nailed. Mr. Redden responded that the battens would be 1 x 4” pieces. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the fence on the patio of the two-story house southwest corner. Mr. Redden said that they would have that patio and a door will go to the patio. Chairman Peters asked about the fence in front of the patio, how high would it be? He continued that the guidelines state that fences in front of buildings should be no more that 3 feet tall. Mr. Redden said that it would be four feet above the finished first floor level but three feet would work. Mr. Minyard added that given the foundation height of two feet that would make the fence 6 f eet tall from the ground. Chairman Peters asked about the height of the foundation. Mr. Redden said he needed 18” clear under the joists, and the finished floor would be potentially 2’-6” out of the ground. He said that he would cut it into the ground some on the upper side. It would have three steps on the porch. Mr. Wilson said that with the raised foundation, it would be converted to a grey water system easily and was part of his original budget. 20 Commissioner Wiedower then commented on the sidewalk to Rock Street from the two- story house. Mr. Wilson said that if the connection needed to be made that he could do it. He spoke about corner porch and said the walk to Rock was fine. Chairman Peters asked for comments from the citizens. David Prater, of Rock Street, supports the growing community. He said that Page Wilson has done a great job in the area and he supports the application. Charles Marratt commented that the HDC has a tough decision to make and gave some history. He spoke of a two-story single family and multi family structures in town that have flat roofs. He thinks that population is declining in the area. He said that the commission needs to support page Wilson. Deanna Jones lives and works downtown and is an interested young pers on that would be interested in buying one of the houses. She lives on Rock Street and supports the application. Steve Stewart lives to the west of the site in a new house. He agrees with what has been said earlier and he supports the application. Robert Traylor owns two of the lots at 14th and Rock Street. He supports the application. He spoke to some of the diversity issues and to the shotgun houses used to be located on his lots. He says the area needs diversity now. Kate East says that she lives in a flat roof house in Hillcrest. She finds the home desirable. Commissioner Wood clarified that Kate East is Rick Redden’s daughter and works for AMR. Mason Ellis lives in the Cliffs Condos, rides his bike in the neighborhood, and likes diversity of architecture. He thinks the houses fit into the neighborhood. Keith Hall, 423 East 8th, spoke in opposition to the application. He appreciates the architectural merit of the home and the desire for diversity of people in the area. He thinks the house is out of place, like zebra among thoroughbred horses. Jana Fritz, of 618 Ferry, spoke in opposition. She moved here for the quality of the architecture of the neighborhood. She claimed that the structures are not the diversity of the neighborhood; it is the people that provide the diversity. Angela Murray, owner of 1400 Rock and 1401 Cumberland, spoke in opposition to the application. She likes the house but it does not fit. She spoke of her previous applications in front of the Commission and having to remove six inches off the top of a fence, at a cost to her to conform. She continued that the design of the house in the 21 district is appalling to her and is afraid that this house would establish precedence. It would be a tragedy if this was allowed. Karol Zoeller, resident of 500 9th street, stated that she had been if front of the commission before also. She moved to the neighborhood because of the protection. Diversity is great, but not in this district. She is concerned that the district could l ose tax credits and lose the district status. She continued that it would not be okay inside the district, but outside the district, it would be great. Jeff Horton, Herrin Horton Architects, stated a discussion about the threshold percentage of contributing structures and that any new structure would affect the percentages. Mr. Minyard added that all new buildings would affect the total percentage of the contributing and non-contributing structures. Mr. Wilson stated that he was here in front of the com mission for the flat roof. He respects their opinions, but they will have a difference of opinion. The commission started discussing the item. Commissioner Wiedower commented that she has gone back and forth on the issue. She respects the importance of the guidelines and understands the guidelines are guidelines and not regulations. She continued that this is an extraordinary situation; one that the tornado took out many houses in the area. She has gone over the details of the projects and it has been challenging for her. She is in support of the project. Commissioner Wood spoke of several issues. He visited the site and reread the guidelines to preserve and protect historic structures. He stated that the commission was to preserve and protect historic structures but there were none in this area. He cited the enabling legislation’s finding and purpose that states to “stabilize and improve property values”. He stated that when the commission applies the literal guidelines to an area like this, the guidelines are very literal on our part. The difference is the separate character, not for new structures in areas of lots of buildings. There is nothing there. Everything will be new. The guidelines state that the new buildings should not mimic the historic ones. He continued that he felt that the commission was not obligated to literal guidelines for concentrated areas. He thinks it would be misguided to apply the guidelines in this situation. He is in support of the application. Chairman Peters stated that while the area was devastated in he 1999 tornado, and the entire area needs help to come back, if the application was split, he could go along with the smaller house. However, he cannot support the two-story house. He continued that the structure has too many variances from the guidelines needed to pass. He restated that with only three people voting, all three must vote yes to get the item approved. He said that there might be a chance to have another commissioner at the next meeting. 22 Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer to August 10, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Wood questioned if it was a majority of the Commission or a majority of those present. After a lengthy discussion, it was noted the bylaws state that it is a majority of the entire commission. Mr. Minyard referred back to a point that the Chairman said. If the application was split, there would be a possibility for a approval of the single story house. He asked the Commission if it would likely change the vote and asked the appli cant if he was willing to amend his application to split the application. He continued that he thought that the separation of votes could possible lead to resolution of the item tonight. He added that the deadline for filing of the Commission was last Fr iday and that it was not guaranteed that a new commissioner would be appointed in time for the next meeting. He also continued that if amendments to the application was made, that a vote could be taken tonight. However, it was noted that the applicant did have the right to ask for a deferral to next month’s meeting. Discussion started again on the structure and Chairman Peters stated that there must be a hip roof on the structure. He again asked if Mr. Wilson would consider separating the item. Mr. Wilson said he would like to keep them together. Mr. Wilson amended his application to reduce the height of the fence in the front yard of the two-story to three feet off the ground. Commissioner Wiedower asked Ms. Weldon about the section of the bylaws th at concerns changing the bylaws. Ms. Weldon responded that the commission could not change what a majority of the commission means because the number of commissioners is set by ordinance. The commission does not have the authority to change city ordinance or state law. Chairman Peters stated that the board and batten does not fit the mass and scale. Even with a lot of missing structures, he does not believe that this structure meets the guidelines with mass or scale. He continued that he wants people living downtown, everybody wants people living downtown. He stated that the structure did not fit the guidelines. Mr. Wilson suggested that if the grid bothered Chairman Peters, he could change it to 4 – 8” lap Hardie board siding. He said that he would really like to keep the flat roof. He continued that he could change to windows to make them appropriate to the area, and not group them like they did on this application, he would promise to bring the new window design into Staff or to the Commission. Mr. Wilson said that the plank siding would come pre-painted, as would the metal siding. It was a cost savings or no exterior painting. He said that hopefully he would be back to develop the two other lots to the north and that he would make the other structures mimic the houses and apartments to the north and scale up to the other houses. Mr. Redden stated that the board and batten was to add texture and details of the area. 23 Chairman Peters reinforced the fact that the while the architect ure is attractive; this is not appropriate for the historic district. Mr. Wilson offered that they could put it in a lap siding and keep the flat roof, but he is hesitant to split the application because the two go together. Chairman Peters asked him why not split the application and start on the other one tomorrow. Mr. Wilson said that he thought he could sell the three bedroom before he could sell the two-bedroom single story house. Commissioner Wiedower stated that it is what it is. She is anxious ab out trying to make it mimic more historic details. She continued that there is an atmosphere downtown of energy and building. If this structure were anywhere else in the district, she would oppose it. But is this better than a vacant lot? Mr. Minyard reiterated the amendments to the application thus far: Take out the chimney on the one story house, keep the fence on the south side of the two story house to three feet from the ground, and he is tentatively changing the siding on the two story house. Discussion occurred about the height of the fence in the front. Commissioner Wood said that he thought Chairman Peters had his heart is in the right place, but Commissioner Wood has reservations of applying guidelines to 21st century architecture. Commissioner Wood is hesitant to try to modify the structures to “shoe horn” it into a particular style. Ms. Weldon understands that this is a very difficult decision, but she felt that she was not doing her job if she did not read this into the record. Stating the State Legislation, the commission, …shall take no action except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant fixtures in the historic district that are obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. She wanted to clarify that since that Commissioner Wood thought this only applied to historic structures. It is applied to the District as a whole. She admitted that that part of the district may be able to be distinguished separately from the rest of the district. Chairman Peters asked that the applicant ask to defer his application. Mr. Wilson asked to keep his two houses on one vote. Mr. Minyard clarified that after approval of the item, he must go to the Planning Commission for approval of the PRD and then to the Board of Directors. A deferral of the item may cost the applicant six weeks of time. Mr. Wilson asked to defer to the next meeting. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer this application to August 10, 2009. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion and the motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 recusal and 1 open position. 24 COMMISSION ACTION: August 10, 2009 There was a discussion as to wheth er to hear the item or not since there was not a new commissioner. Debra Weldon stated that when there is a new commissioner present, the public hearing would need to be held. Chairman Peters commented that it would need to be from square one. There was also a discussion on whether or not this was an automatic deferral or not since only three commissioners were available to vote on this item. After discussion, it was decided that this discussion would not count against his total number of deferrals. It is noted for the record that Commissioner Randy Ripley removed himself from the dais. Rick Redden stated that he wanted to understand and to listen to the commission to help resolve the issues. He spoke of innovative programs in other cities to help developers build houses in downtown areas. He thinks that the roof is the major issue on the structure. He spoke of the need to densify the area and that it is best to develop property when the infrastructure is already in place. He continued with a comm ent on artificial boundaries placed around areas (in reference to historic district boundaries). He continued that he added sunscreens to the building. He would like to see more landscaping requirements added to the guidelines. Chairman Peters stated that his interpretation of the guidelines, in reference to the schools, classes, etc. that he has attended over the last seven years, that he agrees with what Staff has written in the report. The city of Little Rock paid the Heiple Wiedower firm to draw an infill plan. A single-family structure should have roof like most of the district, not what is outside of the district. What is outside the district is not his concern; his only concern is within MacArthur Park. He agrees with Staff’s report on roof type, design, scale, etc. Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that this item was a challenge for all of the commissioners. The vacant lots have been a mitigating situation. She has spent a lot of time online looking at other city’s guidelines and how they dea l with infill constructions. Raleigh, North Carolina’s district guidelines state that success does not base on existing buildings forms, details, etc, but rather relies on the character of the district. It mentions many features that our guidelines also list. She mentioned Salt Lake City’s design guidelines. She also noted Steve Luoni’s letter that was written concerning a infill project outside of MacArthur Park Local Ordinance District. She believes that the circumstances are so unique for this site and supports the application. Chairman Peters stated that according to Dan Becker at the City of Raleigh, it makes no difference if the projects are on the edge of the district or in the center of the district. The project is in the district and the gu idelines do not need to be changed for one area versus another. Mr. Drane Wilkerson said the same thing. Commissioner Wood asked for a copy of that quote to be placed in the record. 25 Mr. Wilson spoke of the variety of styles in the district and stated th at he did not want to move the district lines. Mr. Redden asked about lessening the standards for infill development at the policy level. Mr. Minyard stated that this hearing could not establish that policy. The policy would have to be set by the commis sion in a separate hearing to change the guidelines and the ordinance at the Board of Directors level. Mr. Redden noted that there were fifty vacant lots in the area and that he did not want to go though this discussion on each one. Chairman Peters stated that with roof, scale, and mass, a lot of changes and variations could be made with walls and windows, etc. to produce interesting architecture. Mr. Redden asked if it was redesigned with still having a flat roof, if the building would still be incompatible. Chairman Peters said that he thought it would be incompatible. Mr. Wilson stated that price and design had to be considered as an applicant and has to address the market. Chairman Peters said that his feeling do not come into play in this decision, he has guidelines to uphold. He has been instructed to uphold the guidelines through all of the classes and seminars that he has attended. Chairmen Peters stated that the scale and height is not the issue, in itself, it is the roof. He continued that his interpretation of the guidelines state that it should have a pitched roof. He does not understand why the roof cannot be changed and still have the water gathering capabilities, solar panels, etc. He does not understand the fixation with the flat roof. Commissioners Wiedower and Wood stated they were comfortable with the application. Commissioner Wood stated that with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and the way that he reads the legislation, it seem compatible to him and it is just a diffe rence of opinion on the interpretation of the guidelines. Mr. Minyard, Staff made a brief comment in lieu of a Staff presentation. He stated he did not think that Staff or anyone else driving by would not recognize that this is a new building of contemporary architecture. He commented on Mr. Luoni’s letter and has reviewed it. The letter really reinforces the Staff write-up and guidelines on page 63 – 69. The bottom line on the report is that if a hip roof was added to the building, Staff would change it’s recommendation to approval, whether it be metal, or asphalt shingle. He continued to point out houses in the block that are historic that have hip roofs and other houses in the district that have hip roofs. Staff is stating that it needs a hip roof to be compatible with all of the other structures in the area that have hipped roofs. All of the other criteria have been met. Staff would welcome a gabled roof but would prefer a hip roof. Commissioner Wiedower stated that out of the seven considerations, the roof is only one that is not compatible. One consideration is not enough for her to say that it is not compatible. 26 Commissioner Wood has an inherent problem with changing the design of a building as proposed by the architect. Mr. Minyard stated that that is the inherent nature of being on a design review committee, whether it be the LR HDC or the Capitol Zoning District. Changes are made, and he listed changes made to recent infill structures. Chairman Peters asked how many COA’s approved had some changes made. Mr. Minyard responded that all had some changes made to them. Chairman Peters listed projects, as did Mr. Minyard. Commissioner Wood stated that the changes were made because of the adjacency of historic structures. Mr. Wood said that in this situation there are vacant lots. Mr. Minyard responded that there are historic structures in the block. Sharon Welch Blair spoke in opposition to the plan and lives at 220 West 22nd Street. She is speaking as a citizen of the area and as presid ent of the DNA Downtown Neighborhood Association. The DNA has a board that covers this area and others, and stated this it was important to uphold the Historic District Guidelines. As a citizen, she stated that all of the people would like to have infill. She has been in the neighborhood for 15 years, and has restored five structures. She wants more people living downtown. The area is at a tipping point; people want to live downtown. The new infill, while meeting all have met requirements may not look like historic structures but they fit in. People love to be in the district. To reference Mr. Wilson, layering is important. She talked about the history of the area and the new infill at the time not being appropriate, lost lots of buildings and at th at time, the Historic districts came into being. There are many opportunities in the city to have modern architecture outside of the district. It is important to know that that most people came to the area because of the protections the districts afford. She continued that she agreed with Staff and Chairman Peter. People will come, and we need appropriate infill. Kay Tatum, resident of MacArthur Park District, spoke in opposition to the plan. She stated the guidelines were in place and that there is a clear understanding of the guidelines. She thinks that there are different standards for renovation versus new construction. What about new structures in older areas? Would this be appropriate in other areas? She appreciates the new people and the ne w construction. She would welcome something that was more conforming to the neighborhood. James Meyer, AMR employee, lives in Stifft Station and encouraged the Commission and Staff to explore the work in the Holy Cross Historic District of New Orleans. As to how infill is done in response to a natural disaster. He stressed the modern adaptation of historic patterns. Downtown neighborhoods have proximity and walkability. Historic fabric is non-existent anymore at this site. He supports the application. Commissioner Wiedower stated that with the hearing being stretched out over several meetings, that the Commission has heard from a variety of people and their individual viewpoints. She is happy that the citizens are participating. She did receive an email from Carolyn Newbern and asked if Mr. Minyard could open it. He responded that he 27 could not open it either. She also received an email from Helen Schaffer that owns property on East 15th Street in opposition. Mr. Minyard said that he would ask Ms. Newbern to resend. Commissioner Wood stated that Anne Jerrard called him and stated that she was opposed to the item. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer the item to the September 9, 2009 hearing due to the fact that the commission is short one commissioner. Commissioner Wood seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 recusal (Ripley) and 1 open position. Mr. Minyard announced the September meeting will be on September 9th at 6:00 in this room. There was a brief break while the room cleared. 28 V. Other Matters ENFORCEMENT ISSUES: There are no enforcement issues as of this time. Commissioner Wiedower commented that the house at 1410 Rock Street did not get a COA for the handicap ramp. Staff did not know when the ramp was built, it was after 1988, the date of the last survey. PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE: Edits were sent to Phil Thomason earlier that day. Staff will print and distribute a copy of the preservation plan to the Commissioners by the end of the week. Mr. Thomason will make the presentation to the Commission at the September meeting. If edits are to be made, Mr. Minyard would prefer to get those tonight. He continued that he was not going to make a presentation to the commission tonight; he was listening for comme nts from the commissioners. Commissioner Wiedower said that in the back of the plan, he discussed planning issues. Is Staff reviewing it? Mr. Minyard comments that four members of Staff have reviewed it and that edits have been made to it. He continue d that with it being a plan, we agree with the recommendations. Some of the items, we see that a change will be made, but some we do not see a change being made in the near future. She asked about the timeline and how it will be adopted. She asked which items will need to go to the board and which can be handed by the HDC. He asked the Commission to rank the goals and objectives on page 112 – 115. Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff to request from AHPP a copy of all nominations of all Districts to place on the web. Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff to get a copy of the state study for economic benefit for historic preservation. The study was done in 2006, which was before the state income tax credit for rehabilitation of historic structures. She asked if CLG money could be spent to do a study just for Little Rock. She listed sources for information that was listed in the report. Chairman Peters expressed that to get a number on heritage tourism was very difficult. Commissioner Wiedower continued on the necessity of surveying areas with reconnaissance surveys. Did he speak with the State on this and can CLG money be used for these reconnaissance surveys. Mr. Minyard responded that he had spoken with Boyd Maher at AHPP and for the state to get somet hing useable, there would need to be four or five items of information with a front façade photo. Mr. Minyard continued that it was his theory (not necessarily the Department’s position) that volunteers could be trained to do this work with their digital cameras. The neighborhoods will need to go through this step in order to get a full-scale survey done that would lead to a National Register district. This could be done with volunteer labor. Areas could be further defined to determine areas for full blown traditional surveys.