Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_12 14 20091 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 14, 2009 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Bob Wood Randy Ripley (in at 5:40) Loretta Hendrix Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: None II. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None III. Certificates of Appropriateness 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: December 14, 2009 APPLICANT: Adam Melton ADDRESS: 1020 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Single Family Residence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1020 Rock Street. The property’s legal description of Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This is currently a vacant lot. The commercial structure that had been in the process of being renovated to a single-family residence burned on July 24, 2006 and was demolished in 2007. The 1988 survey dated the building at 1886 in the Italianate Commercial design and has the name of “Baer Grocery” as the historical name. The store was in operation until the 1940’s. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 6, 2007, a COA was approved and issued to Jay and Barbara Core for demolition of the burned structure. On August 5, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Jay and Barbara Core for fencing, awnings, and garage door replacement. On September 4, 2003, a COA was approved and issued to Jay and Barbara Core for the conversion of the structure into a single-family residence. PROPOSAL: This application will be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for building setback variances. The setbacks in R-4 A is 15 feet front yard setback (along Rock Street) 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 unless there is an adjacent building built closer to the front property line, then you may build to the same distance from the front property line. There are 5’ on each side property line (11th street and north property line) and 25’ for the rear setback. The proposed building will have a 0’ (zero) setback on then front and side property lines. Below are photos of the old building before demolition. North elevation before demolition South (11th Street) elevation before demolition East (front) elevation before demolition West elevation before demolition The proposal is to build a single-family structure in the same location, mass, and volume as the previous grocery store. This will be an all brick structure with the brick matching the brick columns to the west. There will be a brick corbelled cornice to add interest to the parapet. The main entrance will be off 11th Street. This south facade will host square ganged windows in four locations on this façade in addition to a transom over the front door and additional windows over that. There are stationary wood shutters that flank the door and an area to the west of the doors that will be painted black. There will be a contemporary flat canopy structure over the front door entry. 4 The Rock Street facade will have two single garage doors with arched transoms on the northern portion of the façade. To the south will be four square ganged windows of approximately 33” square for an overall length of 11’. The west façade - the courtyard façade - will not be totally visible from the street over the existing 8’ fence. The façade will have six pairs of single pane French doors with transoms extending up 14’. There will be two flat metal canopies extending the majority of the width of the building. The north façade, abutting 1018 Rock street, will have two sets of ganged windows and two individual square windows. This façade does have a solider course (brick accent bank) at the height of the metal canopy on the rear façade and ties in with the tops or bottoms of the windows on the north side. The proposed building is shown with hatch marks in the graphic to the right. This was not the sole commercial building in the area. The building at 1101 Cumberland was built c. 1925 and was the Red Crown Water Company through the 1940’s. (They added dry cleaning to their business later.) Another building at 316 East 11th Street (built c. 1900 – 1910) served as a blacksmith shop at one time. More recently, it was a lighting renovation shop. These sporadic commercial buildings were a common fixture in pre-zoning times of the city. The footprint of the proposed building is in the same location as the previous Baer Grocery Building. The setbacks of the buildings as shown in the graphic above are varied. The side yard setbacks along 11th Street from Cumberland to Rock Street are fairly uniform. The front yard setbacks on Rock from 10th to 11th Street is varied with the western side decreasing as it gets closer to the applicant’s property and on the other side of the street, locating further away. South of 11th on Rock Street, the front setbacks are fairly uniform. Rock Street has a mixture of single-family cottages and multi-family structures in the vicinity. There are one story and two story houses along side two story apartment Building footprints with proposed building hatched. 5 buildings. At 1200 South Commerce is the teacher retirement high-rise apartment building. Below are the illustrations of the proposed building. Proposed south (11th Street) elevation Proposed north elevation The brick is from Jenkins Brick Company and is “Myrtlewood” style with neutral mortar in queen size. The light fixture for the exterior at the garage doors and front door is from Lights America, Monte Grande Collection, in an English Bronze finish. Below are graphic for the two items. Proposed east (Rock Street) elevation Proposed west (courtyard) elevation 6 Brick sample Light fixture The windows are from Marvin Windows. They are wood windows with metal cladding in Bronze color. The windows are a fixed glass with a flat casing style. Window clad color Window flat casing The bulkheads under the shutters on the 11th Street façade will have a precast masonry unit under each pair. They will be supplied by Rockcast, model ST523 which features a 1” x 1” chamfer on the top front of the units. The entire building has a precast band at the base of the building of similar design. The garage doors will feature doors from ”The Overhead Door” company, Ranch House style, model #136 (custom), in a bronze color. They will be 10’x8’ single garage doors. This door has a similar feel to Precast masonry base under shutters 7 the existing door on 3126 East 11th. That door is a re-creation of the original door. The garage doors will have an arched transom over each door. The downspout will be in four locations on the Rock Street façade. The nozzle is furnished in cast bronze Garage Doors Downspout Nozzle The canopies over the front door on 11th and the courtyard doors on the west side are contemporary in style. They are by Mapes Architectural Canopies. The front door canopy is a solid canopy with flush mount (no hangers – the angular rods supporting the weight of the canopy) with a flat soffit and standard fascia. The courtyard door canopies are actually louvers with visible hangers and the same standard fascia as the other. Both canopies are in bronze colored metal. Canopy over Front Door Canopy over Courtyard doors 8 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The “NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS” states on page 63 the following: 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. 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. 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.) 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. 9 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.) Both the neighborhood setting and the individual building site are important to consider when altering an existing building or constructing a new one. The character-defining elements of the neighborhood, as they relate to individual structures, should be maintained. These include set-backs; entrance orientation; placement and character of landscaping; circulation systems and surfacing; the placement of parking areas; lighting; mechanical systems and service areas. The “Design Guidelines for Site Design” state the following on page 70: D. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS Mechanical systems and service areas should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible. 1. Heating, Air Conditioning units, and Ceiling Fans: HVAC units should be located where not readily visible from the street and should be screened with shrubbery or fencing. Window air-conditioners should be located in windows on the rear or side façades and should not result in the removal or replacement of the original window sash or surround. Ceiling fans on porches should be mounted high enough so that they cannot be seen from the street. 2. Electrical and Gas Meters: Electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear façade. 3. Garbage collectors: Large metal containers for garbage at multi-family or institutional sites should be located in the rear and screened from street view with fencing or shrubbery. Garbage collectors on rollers, used by the City, should be concealed from view except on the day of trash pickup. . 4. Satellite Dishes: Satellite dishes should never be installed in front yards or where readily visible in side yards. 5. Solar Collectors: Solar energy panels should be located on rear sections of the roof, behind dormers or gables or other areas not visible from the street. 10 6. Recreational Structures: Recreational structures, such as swimming pools, children’s play equipment, or exercise equipment, should be located in the rear yard and screened with shrubbery or fences. The building‘s front and side yard setbacks are exactly as the previous building was. The height of the proposed building is calculated to be about two feet shorter than the original; thus, the building form is very similar to the previous. The building materials are primarily brick as the previous building. The old building had one garage door on the 11th Street side, where the new building has two on the Rock Street side. The 11th Street side, instead of having only three windows and a garage door, as shown above, will be more animated with the multiple windows, door and painted wood shutters. The northern façade will have more windows than before, at the front of the structure and near the rear. The applicant stated that the front door entry area is to be inset a few feet. This along with the windows and different treatment of the façade above the door would “help to visually break up the length and mass of the long brick wall” as stated by the applicant. The neighborhood had a building of this height, scale, and mass from 1886 until 2006. At 1101 Cumberland, there was another commercial building built in 1925, which still exists. That building is located across 11th Street on the other side of the alley. The building at 316 East 11th was another commercial structure. This was a commercial node for the neighborhood both in use, but more importantly, in the scale and massing of the buildings. The applicant desires to build a single-family home of the same height, scale, and mass in the same location. While this is not a reproduction of the original building, it is in keeping to have a building that housed the “corner store” or a new building that is in the same location with the same size, mass, volume with a commercial feel to the building. Care should be taken to locate mechanical units out of the view of the street. Air conditioning condensers should be placed on the roof below the parapet or in the rear yard, satellite dishes should be placed on the roof out of view of the street and electric and gas meters should be placed in the most inconspicuous location possible. 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 Board of Adjustment approval for setback variances 2. Obtain Franchise permit for canopy over front door. 3. Obtain a building permit. 11 COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2009 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation of the item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if Staff knew when the lots were separated. Staff responded that they did not know. She also asked if the garage doors were operable on the Rock Street side. Staff responded that they were working doors and were single garage doors, roughly ten feet wide each. Chairmen Marshall Peters asked questions concerning the franchise condition in the Staff recommendations. Staff responded that anytime something is built in the right of way, a franchise permit must be obtained, whether it is for awnings, projecting signs, etc. Adam Melton, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission had. He introduced his Architect, Russ Fason of Witsell Evans Rasco. Commissioner Wiedower asked if Mr. Melton was going to occupy the structure. He responded that he was planning to do so. She asked that even though the Commission cannot consider interior arrangements, what the interior was like. Mr. Melton stated it was about 3500 square feet including garage. It was a single story building with the living room on the west towards the courtyard with three bedrooms. Chairman Peters asked what the plans were for the carriage house. Mr. Melton said it might be a guest bedroom or a guesthouse. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the material over the entrance on 11th street. Mr. Melton stated it was a metal clad façade that matches the cladding on the windows. Commissioner Wiedower inquired how wide the lot was. Mr. Melton responded that it was a 50-foot wide lot. She continued to ask about the lighting for the outside of the structure. Mr. Melton referred her to page five of the Staff report to see the fixture. Mr. Melton commented that his was in color and wondered if theirs was in color also. She asked if Staff had a problem with the size of the fixture. Staff commented no. Commissioner Wiedower summarized that she thought the building would be an asset to the neighborhood. She liked the rhythm of replacing the commercial building. She asked if Mr. Melton had spoken with the owner of the property next door? Mr. Melton said that he had shared his vision with her, but not the actual drawings. Staff added that all notifications had been mailed in a timely manner and that there had been no citizen comment on this item received to date. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the item as presented with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Bob Wood seconded. City Attorney Debra Weldon reminded the Chairman to ask for any public comment. Russ Fason, architect of the project, stated the building was similar to the scale of the old building. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the crepe myrtles on the street side. Mr. Melton said that he would protect the ones on 11th street during construction and that he 12 wanted to add two on the Rock street side. Mr. Minyard added that landscaping in the right of way would also require a franchise permit. Any work performed in the right of way requires franchise permits. Ms. Weldon stated that there was a motion on the floor. The motion to approve passed with 4 ayes, and one absent (Ripley). 13 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: December 14, 2009 APPLICANT: Chris Vanlandingham ADDRESS: 512 East Eight Street COA REQUEST: Storm Windows and Storm Doors The applicant requested a deferral to the January 2010 meeting on November 24, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports this request for deferral. COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2009 Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to defer this item until the January 2010 meeting. Commissioner Bob Wood seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 14 OTHER MATTERS Enforcement Issues Staff did not have any items to report to the Commission at this time. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the enforcement of the CUP item near 9th and Rock Street. Brian Minyard responded that the CUP had been approved and that the alterations were not visible from the street. If a sign is installed, it will come before the Commission for approval. Commissioner Wiedower asked if any work had been started on the Ratcliffe House. Mr. Minyard stated that the last time he was by the house, no work had been started. Commissioner Wiedower also asked Staff to send a letter to the owner of the two-story house between 9th and 10th just north of Poe Travel. There are maintenance items that need to be taken care of and a letter to the owner may be warranted. Staff responded that a letter may get things moving on and that a letter could be part of an educational tool and including information on the new state income tax credit. Chairman Peters added that the owner was a single elderly lady that had some health issues and that a couple that was living in the house was taking care of it for her. Dunbar Survey Debra Weldon, City Attorney informed the Commission that a contract with attachments had been sent to the consultant but the consultant did not complete the Scope of Services as asked. The details of the contract need to be worked out. Commissioner Bob Wood asked if the scope of work was included in the RFQ. Ms. Weldon stated that the scope of services listed the general terms of the contract and to comply with the AHPP timelines, resources, and details to be determined. It is more logistical. At 5:40 p.m., commissioner Randy Ripley entered the hearing. Commissioner Wiedower wants a letter mailed to the property owners to announce surveyors. Chairman Peters announced the HDC was not doing this, the Housing Department was. Commissioner Wiedower said that this was a collaborative effort and that they should be discussing it. She wanted to include letters to owners in all future surveys. Commissioner Wiedower spoke that the survey was a collaborative effort between the HDC and the Housing Department. She noted that she wanted all property owners to be notified on all surveys and wanted to become part of the standard procedures. Commissioner Wood agreed and stated that giving advanced notice helps mitigate fears. Commissioner Wiedower asked for additional information on buildings from the citizens. Commissioner Hendrix also stated that she has approached the Mayor and City Manager about the CDBG funding of the survey and stated that the City was not in compliance with the Department of Justice Standards for use of HUD monies. Mr. Minyard stated that this is an architectural survey, not a comprehensive neighborhood plan nor a consolidated plan. He continued to explain what a survey is. Mr. Minyard 15 stated that he could not speak for the Housing Department and could not comment if they were or were not in compliance with the Department of Justice. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she felt that Andre Bernard knew how to spend the funds. Ms. Weldon asked to speak with Commissioner Hendrix at a later date to discuss this further. Commissioner Hendrix was concerned of some homes being surveyed and some not. There was a discussion if the surveyors trespassed on private property. It was explained by staff the photos were taken from the public property, either alleys or streets. Chairman Peters stated that he watched part of the MacArthur Park survey and they took all photos from public property. Commissioner Hendrix asked about homes that did not have alleys on the back. Chairman Peters stated that if the house could be photographed from the street behind, that it could be taken from that vantage point. But he was not going to tell professionals how to do their job. Ms. Weldon read from the proposed contract concerning taking photos from alleyways and public right of way or public property. Commissioner Wood was curious as to why the Commission was discussing this item. He stated that it was simply an informational item for the Commission; the Commission has no funding or administrative authority over it, and wondered why the Commission was discussing it at length. Commissioner Hendrix stated that the discussion was good for new surveys, for new opportunities and for educational opportunities. Commissioner Hendrix stated to sit on the committee was to advocate for preservation education. Ms. Weldon appreciates the input and likes the idea of notices. It will be a negotiating point but may not be able to get out the notices. Mr. Minyard stated that the Planning Department did not have additional money for postage to do that but did make the use of the bulk mail account available for the use provided that others paid for the actual postage. The discussion moved to having a show on the city government TV channel. Commissioner Hendrix stated she would get with Ms. W eldon on the HUD guidelines. She stated that originally, it was to be a planning process, to get people ready for the survey. She reference work in St. Louis of the preservation of neighborhoods. She hopes that in the future, there will be a “preservation millage” tax in the future. Preservation Plan Ranking of Goals Commissioner Hendrix asked about the Citywide Preservation Plan Goals that were ranked by the commissioners concerning the responsible parties. She asked if the test in the last column was proposed by the Staff or the consultant. Mr. Minyard responded that the consultant proposed the language and Staff did not disagree with it or propose alternative language. Mr. Minyard stated that he tabulated the sub-goals and placed them in order on the handout to show the ranking as voted by the Commission.