Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report hdc16-044Page 1 of 16 DATE: January 9, 2017 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Porch Restoration PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Porch Restoration to replace the porch per pictorial evidence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. Location of Project Page 2 of 16 On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. 2006 Survey east (front) elevation East (Front) elevation Existing south elevation Existing north elevation PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant wishes to reconstruct the porch that was originally built on the house according to pictorial evidence. On other applications, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are used. However, this project requires the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Restoration to be used. The manual The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, is available at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-guidelines.pdf It states on page 117: “Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” Those ten “Standards for Restoration” are as follows: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property’s restoration period. Page 3 of 16 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Also, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Rather than maintaining and preserving a building as it has evolved over time, the expressed goal of the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring Historic Buildings is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and most significant—time in its history. First, those materials and features from the “restoration period” are identified, based on thorough historical research. Next, features from the restoration period are maintained, protected, repaired (i.e., stabilized, consolidated, and conserved), and replaced, if necessary. As opposed to other treatments, the scope of work in Restoration can include removal of features from other periods; missing features from the restoration period may be replaced, based on documentary and physical evidence, using traditional materials or compatible substitute materials. The final guidance emphasizes that only those designs that can be documented as having been built should be re-created in a restoration project.” Furthermore, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Most Restoration projects involve re-creating features that were significant to the building at a particular time, but are now missing. Examples could include a stone balustrade, a porch, or cast iron storefront. Each missing feature should be Page 4 of 16 substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Without sufficient documentation for these “re-creations,” an accurate depiction cannot be achieved. Combining features that never existed together historically can also create a false sense of history. Using traditional materials to depict lost features is always the preferred approach; however, using compatible substitute material is an acceptable alternative in Restoration because, as emphasized, the goal of this treatment is to replicate the “appearance” of the historic building at a particular time, not to retain and preserve all historic materials as they have evolved over time. If documentary and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate re-creation of missing features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project work.” The house was moved to its current location sometime between 1987 and 1913 according to the Sanborn maps. The earliest photo available dates to 1890’s (see sheets P1.0 & P1.1). Historic photos have guided the work of the architect and applicant to recreate the porch. The porch will be built as close as possible to the photo that is included in the handouts. It is on page P0.0 through P0.3 of the handout. The front door will remain. The posts are square posts with beveled edges and applied trim. The brackets include sawn brackets with trefoil cutouts and “Organic brackets shown on page P1.2. Page P0.2 shows the turned spindles that are to be used in the reconstruction. The porch roof will be metal and sloped with no gutters or downspouts shown. The pitch is not noted and will probably be seen from the ground. On page P0.3, it appears that the porch will be a wood porch that is 10’ deep. Test pits were dug to establish the original location of the porch. New steps and sidewalk will be installed. Proposed Front Elevation submitted Nov 23, 2016 Proposed Side Elevation submitted Nov 23, 2016 Page 5 of 16 The reconstructed porch, as described in the application documents, fulfills the standards as written above. Historic photos of brackets Historic photos of door hood and spindles Historic photos of porch NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have any questions of Staff. Commissioner Dick Kelley left the meeting at this time. He would have to recuse from the hearing since he owns property within the area of influence. Mark Brown stated that Ed Sergeant has drawn plans as close as possible from the or iginal photos. Jill Judy stated that they wanted to return the structure to the original grandeur. Commissioner Ted Holder asked who supplied to original photo. Ms. Judy replied that Tony Curtis had supplied it to them. The house has similar architecture to other houses on the block. Commissioner Toni Johnson was pleased that they took the time to do the research, drawings, etc. She was glad that they were taking on this project. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that the porch was pretty but it did not relate enough information. He had questions on materials and construction. There was a discussion of the roof of the building. He continued with additional questions. What was the trim to be made from? What are the proportions? Why were these details not submitted with the application? Ms. Judy said that their architect, Ed Sergeant, will draw up the templates and to build the brackets when construction starts. Commissioner Russell said that the majority of his questions Page 6 of 16 deal with the materials, size, scale, proportion, and things specified in the guidelines. He wanted more detail in order to make a decision on this item. Ms. Judy stated that she respected where Commissioner Russell was coming from but they did not want to spend the additional money on all of the detail architectural work before gaining approval from this Commission. She asked that Commissioner Russell trust them to do right on the construction of the porch. Mr. Brown stated this was something that they think is exactly like the original, but do not have the original plans. They request some leeway in construction. Commissioner Russell says that his questions relate to the materials, size, and proportion. He does not have enough information to make a decision. The Chair asked Staff if they were comfortable with the submittals. Mr. Minyard said that they provided a scalable elevation of the front and the side and provided a perspective. They did not list every single material to be used. But Staff thought it was sufficient enough to make a recommendation of approval. Mr. Minyard stated that this applicant has done both federal and state income tax credits before. He stated that it could be asked if this one is going through that process, but if they were, that would be an additional review that would ensure that the porch was correct. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they were seeking Federal and State income tax credits. Ms. Judy stated that they had been approved for part One and Part Two of the federal and State income tax credit. Ms. Judy stated that Commissioner Russell had let his opinion be known and with Commissioner Kelley having to recuse himself and being short one position, and Commissioner Frederick being new, she asked if they needed to withdraw the application. If they defer, is there any way to get approved with an additional commissioner in the near future? Debra Weldon stated that the bylaws provide for the Commission deferring for additional information if Commissioner Russell wanted to do so. Deferrals need to be submitted five days in advance per the bylaws. There was more discussion on procedure. Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that she felt comfortable voting on the item. There was a motion made by Commissioner Holder for the Commission to ask for a deferral of the application to the January 2017 hearing for additional information and for all of the Commissioners to have time to review the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Russell and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Kelley) There was a clarification by Debra Weldon that a majority of Commissioners present constitute a majority when voting on deferrals. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer the other two items to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. STAFF UPDATE: January 9, 2017 The applicant has submitted revised drawings that provide dimensions and materials for the project. On the “East elevation”, the new graphics give dimensions on the height of the porch floor, the height of the columns and overall height of the porch addition. It states that the ceiling of the porch will be breadboard. The columns will be 8x8” wood columns around steel tubes. Page 7 of 16 East Elevation submitted December 17, 2016 Page 8 of 16 Porch Plan submitted December 17, 2016 Page 9 of 16 North Elevation submitted December 17, 2016 The brick foundation of the porch will be painted to match the house foundation. It also provides General Notes. On the “North Elevation”, it gives additional dimensions on the porch and how it aligns with the existing house. The “Porch Plan” gives additional dimensions on the layout of the structure. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. Page 10 of 16 COMMISSION ACTION: January 9, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item to the Commission. There were no questions of Staff by the Commission. Ed Sergeant, the architect for the project, made a presentation of the project stating that the design was based on pictorial evidence and archeology from dig pits to establish the original size of the porch. He also researched homes of the period in the neighborhood for similar details. He hoped that the additional information that was submitted was helpful. There were no questions of the Commission. No citizens were present to speak. A motion to approve the item as submitted with Staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Toni Johnson. The motion was approved with 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse (Kelley) and 1 open position. Page 11 of 16 Application Page 12 of 16 Cover Letter submitted Nov 23, 2016 Page 13 of 16 Cover Letter submitted December 17, 2016 Page 14 of 16 Contributing and Non-contributing map Color renderings of proposed porch restoration submitted Nov 23, 2016 Page 15 of 16 Perspective of proposed porch restoration submitted Nov 23, 2016 Page 16 of 16 Plan View of Porch addition submitted Nov 23, 2016