Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2020-003 Staff ReportPage 1 of 15 DATE: February 10, 2020 APPLICANT: Ibrahim and Marad Elsaidi ADDRESS: 314 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-003 COA REQUEST: Awning Replacement PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 314 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “W est 26' of Lot 7 & W est 26' of the South 10' of Lot 8 block 40 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This one story commercial building was built in the 1960’s. The 2006 survey form states: “This standard Commercial 20th Century building has aluminum framed windows and doors at front with side walls and back with no openings. The mansard roof attached to front wall provides protection over sidewalk. The first occupant was Joseph Pritchard Grocery and remained there through the 1970’s.” It is not considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. The awning was removed without a COA and had started to be replaced in a manner that cannot be administratively approved as maintenance. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 6, 2019, a COA was approved and issued to Ibrahim Saidi to replace glass in the windows and doors due to fire damage. On March 11, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to Samirah Alwazir for signage. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 2 of 15 South façade January 2013. South façade October 2019 Looking west December 2019. Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to replace the damaged awning with the one that is under construction. The intent is to use the shingles as has been started and paint the shingles red. On page 24 of the Guidelines under Individual Building elements – Commercial and Mixed Use in the Rehabilitation Section, it states “Awnings may be added to commercial buildings if physical evidence exists. Awnings should be of a traditional design, materials, and placement. Canvas, acrylic, or vinyl-coated materials are preferable to fixed metal or wood awnings.” Based on the method of brick counting, the original awning was 36” deep. It was grey in color, and was painted red after Mr. Elsaidi opened the Downtown Deli and Grocery in 2013. Staff received a phone call from a neighboring property owner in late October 2019. Staff made contact with the owner on November 4, 2019. The owner stated that the awning was damaged in the fire and had to be removed. Staff explained that if the awning was replaced exactly the way it was before, it could be administratively approved with a Certificate of Compliance. Staff worked with the applicant to locate metal shingles that are made by the same manufacturer that are Page 3 of 15 similar. The exact shingles that were on the building are not manufactured anymore. The closest in appearance to those metal shingles are $441.00 per square with $2,000 shipping. After the awing was removed, it appears that the building was originally a stucco building and the brick veneer was added later when the awning was added. The stucco finish is still on east side. It is uncertain when the awning was added to the building. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the December 20, 2019 Pre-application meeting. The comments from the commissioners are summarized as follows: SITING No comments. HEIGHT No comments. PROPORTION Should be basically the same as the old awning. What goes back should be as close as possible to the old awning. Replace roof in similar proportion to original based on pictorial evidence. RHYTHM No comments. SCALE No comments. MASSING No comments. ENTRANCE AREA Maintain openings in original configuration based on pictorial evidence. WALL AREAS Windows, doors, etc. should be in the same place. Similar comments as above. ROOF AREA Do not put shingles. Should be a complete projects, soffit material and water tight. Photo taken December 2019. Photo taken October 2019. Page 4 of 15 FAÇADE Probably should be the same. Should be put back as close as possible like it was before fire. DETAILING Not much to see. Provide detailing for awning construction. List of materials to be used and description of waterproofing method. This building is non-contributing building to the district. Staff does not know of any photos of the building prior to the addition of the awning or adding brick to the exterior on three sides. Any attempt to make the building look more contributing would be conjecture without pictorial evidence as to what the façade originally looked like. The addition of asphalt shingles is removable and would not make it harder to make it contributing. The Historic District Commission does not review colors of shingles. Painting the shingles add a degree of maintenance that could be avoided by installing the desired color of asphalt shingle in the first place. Painting of the shingles may void the warranty of that manufacturer and may damage the shingles. The applicant needs to research if the painting of the shingles will damage them, void the warranty, or both. Whether the asphalt shingles are painted or not, there needs to be a uniform color to the asphalt shingles. The result of the Pre-Application meeting was for the applicant to put the awning back the way it was prior to the fire. Staff does not know off any metal shingles in the district on mansards. Across the country, these mansard awnings were covered in all of all types of materials, asphalt shingles, wood shingles, metal shingles, etc. This district is not known for Mid-Century slipcovers or modifications to commercial buildings which are high design and have attained historic status on their own. Would the replacement of the awning with materials other than the metal shingles impact the contributing structures in the district or in the area of influence? It is staff’s opinion that since this is not a contributing structure, this is not an architecturally significant building, and this is the only commercial mansard roof in the district, it will not impact the district. There are two buildings on 10th Street that are apartment buildings that have asphalt shingles on a mansard roof. Those appear on the aerial photos after 1970. Those are also considered not-contributing. This application does not cover any future signage on the building or grounds. Those would be covered in a future COA application. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were one comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Submit to all inspections via the Building permit process before occupying building. COMMISSION ACTION: February 20, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He stated that there were two emails and one phone call concerning the item. Murad Elsaidi, the son of the applicant, stated that the building was non-contributing and spoke of the expense for the replacement metal shingles. They are asking to paint the asphalt shingles. They are looking to use, sell, or lease the building. Page 5 of 15 Jimmy Moses, property owner in the district, spoke of his development in the district including the Legion Row Apartments that are next door. He said that he was delighted that they were going to fix the fire damage but was concerned over the painted shingles. He did not believe that the mansard was original. He said the building was noncontributing and that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. He asked if the Commission would consider removing the mansard roof and putting the commercial storefront back. He gave the commission and staff a photo of a building on 7th Street where a commercial storefront had been installed. He would support a redo of the building with a traditionally designed storefront. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if the applicant had looked at a different design. Mr. Ibrahim Elsaidi stated they were trying to finish up and make it like it looked in 2013, but the expense of the original shingles was prohibitive. Chair Jeremiah Russell asked the applicant if they would consider not painting the shingles. He was concerned about the maintenance, appearance and warranty of the painted shingles. Mr. Ibrahim Elsaidi said that they would not paint it if the Commission wanted. Commissioner Lindsey Boerner commented on the photo from 2019 and wanted clarification on the two colors of shingles. Would they replace the painted shingles with unpainted ones? Mr. Murad Elsaidi sad that the metal shingle were blue before he painted them red. Some of the brown asphalt shingles have been painted. He thought it was better to paint all of them the same. If the Commission wants them different, he would do that. Mr. Murad Elsaidi said that they would do what the commission wanted with the asphalt shingles as long as they did not have to go back with the expensive metal shingles. Commissioner Frederick asked if he had started the process without permission and if the Commission would have allowed him to do that if the first place. Mr. Minyard explained that if they had come back with the recommended metal shingles, it would have been signed off administratively as maintenance. Since they started with the asphalt shingles without permission, they are in front of the commission to ask for approval of the change in materials from metal to asphalt on the shingles. Mr. Minyard stated that the Commission does not review color, so the color of the asphalt shingles is not the issue. Chair Russell stated that the building has some Art Deco influences on the porch and maybe originally had some other Art Deco elements based on the photos of the steps. He continued that he would rather not have an awning on the building. The applicant did not provide details on how the awning was going to be constructed as was stipulated in the Pre-Application meeting. Commissioner Frederick stated that she would not have approved the asphalt shingles on this building if he had approached the Commission before construction started. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he thought the building was older than it appears. Commissioner Frederick stated that the commission has had other people put they buildings back they way they were and that this applicant should be required to do so also. Mr. Moses said that he has appeared before the HDC for renovations concerning a fence at 401 E Capitol. They had removed the fence that was installed improperly and had put in the approved Page 6 of 15 fence. He continued that the applicant had an opportunity to increase their property value with a new design on the front. He would support getting rid of the mansard roof. Vice Chair Holder stated that the Commission does not know what the storefront looked like before the mansard roof was installed. The application as filed is for the asphalt shingles on the mansard roof and that is what they can vote to approve or not. There was a discussion on whether mansard roofs were located in the district. The apartments at 13th and Scott were mentioned as well as apartments at 10th and McMath. Commissioner Frederick said that the vote could be to deny and why was this application any different. Commissioner Amber Jones responded that it was not about the looks, but about the rules. The applicants left the podium and a discussion was held in the rear of the room with Mr. Moses and Page Wilson. Murad Elsaidi amended the application to remove the awning and cover the top of the building that needed to be repaired. Mr. Minyard stated that the proposed amendment was enough of a deviation from the application which would require drawings and specifications to illustrate what was being reviewed. That would require a deferral and to notify all of the neighbors again. Chair Russell said that there was enough evidence in that one photo to show what the building original was. He described that if one was to remove the brick above the awning, repair the stucco, and repair the storefront, it would be sensitive to what the building was originally. Vice Chair Holder asked what the cost of that would be. Chair Russell it would be $3,000 or so to finish like he described and would be comparative to what the original cost was. Commissioner Frederick asked if the applicant had insurance. He responded that he did. Shawn Overton, of the City Attorney’s office stated that he was getting uncomfortable with the proceedings because the applicant seemed to be under stress. The applicant will need to make the decision to defer or continue. Ibrahim Elsaidi responded that that if they can finish it up, they would. If not, we would take the awning down. There was a discussion between the applicants at the podium. Mr. Minyard explained the process of deferring the application with a material change, having the application denied and the time frame of 12 months, and withdrawing the application. Options of withdrawing was the option of attending the Pre-Application meetings as they did before. Murad Elsaidi asked to amend the application back to the way it was filed. Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Boerner seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 1 yes (Jones), 4 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Commissioner Jones stated that she voted for the application because of it being similar to others in the district. Page 7 of 15 Chair Russell voted against the item. The mansard roof could be argued to be in conformance with the guidelines, but not in the best interest of this project within the district. T he applicant should explore other options. Vice Chair Holder agreed with Chair Russell. Commissioner Frederick thought that the awning should match others in the area and wished that the applicant had come in before construction started. Vice Chair Holder agreed with Commissioner Frederick. Mr. Minyard recommend that the applicant come visit him in his office for the next steps. Page 8 of 15 Application Page 9 of 15 Cover Letter Page 10 of 15 Excerpt of guidelines Page 11 of 15 Excerpt of guidelines continued Page 12 of 15 Excerpt of guidelines continued Page 13 of 15 Excerpt of guidelines continued Page 14 of 15 Excerpt of guidelines continued Page 15 of 15 10Excerpt of guidelines continued