HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2020-026 Staff report with minutesPage 1 of 17
DATE: March 4, 2021
APPLICANT: Lena Gabrahana
ADDRESS: 900 S Rock Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-026
COA REQUEST: Siding and Columns
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 900 S Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “North 15’ of Lot 11 and all
of Lot 12, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built c 1880. The 2006
survey form states: “this one-story Queen Anne style
house has a corner turret, decorative brick work at the
chimney and larger dormer set back from the wall below.
A Craftsman influenced porch covers most of the front.”
It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
Siding and Columns were added and changed without a
COA by the HDC. This work includes changing the
siding in the front gable and around the front door plus
adding two columns to the front porch.
RECENT ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On August 8, 2016, a COC was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new roof.
On September 13, 2012, a COA was approved and issued to Lisa Cornwell for a new fence and
driveway.
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 17
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF
THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF
INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The applicant changed two items on the
facade of the house. They have changed the
siding in the front gable and around the front
door plus added columns to the front porch.
Siding change: It is unclear when the house
was sheathed in vinyl siding, it is not stated in
the files. The addition of vinyl siding is not
the issue of this application. The applicant
either removed or covered over the stucco in
the gable with a stained wood siding. This
treatment was also completed on either side
of the front door where vinyl siding was
removed or covered over. This is a change in
materials and appearance that requires a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Columns addition: The wooden columns were added to the front porch at the same time.
These are solid 6x6 posts. According to the application, these posts are “two small cosmetic
wood beams to have a clean esthetic.”
These changes to the structure are required to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness before a
permit is issued for the work. No permit was obtained for this work prior to the work being
performed. This work meets the threshold to require a building permit.
On page 27 of the Guidelines, it states: “New alterations should be designed to respect the
original design character of the building. Analyze the structure to determine which elements are
essential to its character, considering mass, size, scale, and proportion to the lots. Don’t try to
make it appear older (or younger) in style than it really is. The genuine heritage of the District
should be expressed.”
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Front facade as of December 9, 2019. Front facade as of September 14, 2020.
Page 3 of 17
Columns were added where they would not typically be installed. The application states they
were cosmetic, not structural. If there were structural issues with the span on the porch, it could
have been repaired without changing the overall appearance of the porch by modifying the
structural aspects within the box beam.
Historic alterations, like the Craftsman inspired porch, have historic value. The craftsman porch
on this house is a duplicate of many other porches in the city. Adding additional columns in the
location that they were added is not appropriate for a Craftsman porch either.
The painting of the brick columns are not an issue in this item. The brick has been painted for a
number of years prior and repainting a previously painted surface would be considered
maintenance.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 6, 2021
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and stated that all notices have been
properly executed. He noted the contacts that have been received from the QQA and the
MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association since the item was distributed.
Lena Gabrahana, the owner and applicant, stated that she had worked closely with the
neighborhood association on this application. She had taken other structures in the area into
consideration when she made the changes to the structure. She said that she was unaware
that she needed a building permit for the work. She continued that some of the items on the
house are historic and some are not. She tried to get replacement siding, but that type is no
longer made so it was down to replacing instead of repairing.
Ms. Gabrahana said it was not feasible at this time to replace all of the siding on the house.
She chose cedar siding based on another house nearby. (Editor’s note: That house is new
construction.) She said she did not remove anything historical, just the vinyl siding that was
added later. She added the cedar beams (posts). She could not find a historical photo of the
house and did not know if beams (posts) were there originally. Beams did not compromise
structure and are purely cosmetic.
Chair Jeremiah Russell asked the applicant if there was still wood siding under the metal siding.
Ms. Gabrahana said there was some wood siding under there. Some of it was rotted. Ms.
Gabrahana stated it was not and the estimate was for $70-80k to replace with wood. Chair
Russell stated that artificial siding, whether metal of vinyl traps moisture behind the siding and
rots the wood.
Chair Russell continued that the cedar posts are not appropriate to the style of the porch. If this
had come to the commission as a proposal, the application for the posts would be rejected out
of hand.
Commissioner Amber Jones asked when the siding was placed on the house. Mr. Minyard
stated it was sometime before 1984 when the commission started hearing cases. The 1977
Page 4 of 17
survey photo is hard to tell if it is siding or not. Mr. Minyard added that the issue today is the
removing of the siding and replacing with other materials along with the addition of the posts.
Commissioner Christine Aleman asked if the siding was articulated at the door. It was a choice
to do wood or cedar accents. Ms. Gabrahana said that the siding was cracked all around the
house and especially around the door.
Ms. Gabrahana asked the Commission what typed of posts to add. Chair Russell said that
noting was there originally. Commissioner Jones stated the decorative element was the short
brick post. Ms. Gabrahana asked what decorative element should be there. Chair Russell
stated that nothing should be there. Posts are inappropriate on the craftsman porch.
Commissioner Jones asked about the photo in the staff report. It was noted to check the dates
on the photos.
Chair Russell commented that the discussion should be whether or not the posts are
appropriate and if the wood is an appropriate alternative to the artificial siding.
Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that the porch was not originally craftsman. He continued that the
posts are inappropriate. Craftsman porches in the Quapaw Quarter are common. The
improvements should reinforce the Craftsman porch. The wood in the gable is also
inappropriate. Adding columns are confusing styles with the two styles that are already three.
There was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed. Mr. Jamie Collins,
Director of Planning and Development, stated that she had stated she was for the application.
Chair Russell stated that he disagreed with Vice Chair Holder on the wood only. Simply stained
and not painted is okay. If posts were removed, he would be in favor the application. The
Commission does not deal with color of materials.
After requested, Ms. Gabrahana modified her application to remove the posts. Ms. Latimer
stated that the other option was to leave her application as is, and if it filed, she had to right to
appeal the decision with an attorney in circuit court.
Again there was an attempt to get Susie Taylor on the meeting, but it failed.
Ms. Gabrahana asked about the process to remove her property from the historic district since it
is not all original. Chair Russell stated that would not be an option. Mr. Collins stated that the
house is contributing, even if it was not, it would still be in the district. The review would be
required. Sherri Latimer, of the City Attorney’s office, agreed.
Ms. Gabrahana confirmed her amendment to remove the posts from her application.
Commission Jones made a motion to approve the application as amended and Chair Jeremiah
Russell seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes, 3 noes (Holder, Hodge and Jones)
and 1 absent (Frederick). Ms. Latimer confined that it takes 4 positive votes for an item to pass.
Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the
application. Chair Russell voted to approve as amended saying the cedar was acceptable for
Craftsman and Victorian houses even if it is not common. The guidelines state that natural
materials are favored over artificial materials.
Page 5 of 17
Vice Chair Holder stated it was inappropriate and cedar was not used especially in the
pediments and something not common in Queen Anne or Craftsman in this region.
Commissioner Robert Hodge did not believe that cedar as presented is appropriate adding that
this moved the house into a modern style. The house already has a Queen Anne and
Craftsman style and adding a third style is not appropriate. He added that this might be fine for
houses outside of the Historic District.
Commissioner Jones stated concern that this raw cedar siding is not seen in the Historic District
on Craftsman houses in Little Rock. The material should be painted if it was to remain. She
continued that this application could send confusing signals to new neighbors as to what they
could do to the houses. She wished she would have known to get her permit.
Commissioner Aleman stated she was in favor of the application. Her house has vinyl on three
sides. Replacing the vinyl with wood is appropriate when the vinyl is cracked. Commissioner
Mark Hinson said he was a fan of the cedar siding but could vote to approve with the posts
removed since the applicant compromised on removing the posts.
Chair Russell informed the applicant that the item failed and personally encouraged her to
appeal the decision.
Mr. Minyard started a discussion about expunging the vote to see if a different result occurred.
The discussion then focused on expunging and deferment to see if Staff could work out some
sort of compromise for the application with a meeting on site. Ms. Latimer stated that
expungement should be necessary and for cause and Vice Chair Holder interpreted it to mean
that if the Commission wanted to expunge, that was cause enough. Mr. Collins recommended
that expungement be for the applicant to defer for Staff to work with the applicant.
Commission Hodge made a motion to expunge the vote due to confusion of the applicant, cost
of appeal. He clarified at the request of Chair Russel that it included to allow Staff and the
Applicant to find a work around to the problem so that a successful application could be
submitted by the applicant. It was noted by Chair Russel that this would be a commission
deferral and costs of notification be borne by the Commission. It was seconded by Vice Chair
Holder. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the application at the Commission’s request to
the next public hearing for more information and it was seconded by Commissioner Aleman.
The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick).
Mr. Minyard stated that he would get in touch with the applicant to schedule a time to visit on
site about the alternatives.
STAFF UPDATE: March 4, 2021
Staff met with the applicant on Friday January 15th on site at 900 S Rock Street. On January
25, 2021, Staff received an email stating that she was amending her application with the
removal of the columns and her application to read “vinyl siding replaced with real wood siding
that is stained and sealed.” The posts have been removed from the porch at time of distribution
of this agenda.
Page 6 of 17
The new cedar siding was inspected and the
width of the siding is very similar to the width of
the vinyl siding that remains on the house. There
were holes observed in the vinyl siding under the
porch. The vinyl siding was installed in an
overlapping fashion as traditional wood siding
would have been. The new cedar siding has not
been installed in an overlapping pattern, but has
been installed flush to the wall. It is unknown if
this siding is tongue and groove, rabbeted, or butt
jointed. It is known that the siding is smooth on
the surface and has a small bevel on the top and
bottom of the board when installed horizontally.
The image on the right approximates what has
been installed with beveled edges.
The Artificial Siding Policy was developed for applicants when adding vinyl or metal siding to
their historic homes. It specifically does not apply to new construction. While this policy does
not apply on the surface to this application, there are individual points that could be applied to
this item. The policy is included in its entirety at the end of this report.
The Artificial Siding Policy as stated in Appendix L in the guidelines states the following:
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:
5) Restoration of original materials 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 with 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;
While the artificial siding is not historic, it has not made the structure non-contributing. If the
applicant had been able to find replacement siding to repair the siding pieces that had holes in
them, this would have been a maintenance issue with staff approval. Replacing with matching
siding would not change the appearance, texture or color of the exterior of the home.
With the contrasting color of siding as installed, the question arises if the design, size, texture,
material used, and outer appearance of the structure changed as referenced in the state law
and city ordinance. There are at least two more houses on Rock between 9th and I-630 that
have a similar plan with the turret. The artificial siding on the house at 900 Rock is similar in
scale to the wood siding on the house at 904 Rock, 908 Rock, and 1112 Rock. Therefore, the
artificial siding and the new cedar siding are similar scale to the historic siding on the street.
The cedar siding is mounted flush versus the overlapped beveled historic siding.
Since this is a natural material per number 8 above and is in scale, is it in compliance with the
Guidelines? The question arises if the new cedar siding was painted or stained to match the
Photo of siding showing similar beveled edge.
Page 7 of 17
body of the house, would this conform to the guidelines and the ordinance? Since the Historic
District Commission of Little Rock does not regulate color of materials, is this an issue?
Referring back to the ordinance’s mention of design, size, texture, material used, and outer
appearance, the design of the two sidings are the same horizontal installation. They are of a
similar size. The texture is smooth on both. The material used is different. Replacing vinyl
siding with wood of a proper scale would be in compliance with the guidelines. The outer
appearance is not the same. Stained and sealed wood has a different appearance than painted
wood. Staff believes that if the cedar siding was painted, this might not be an issue since the
commission does not regulate paint color.
In the past, Staff has written letters to every property owner in the district reminding them that
they are in the local ordinance historic district. Also, staff has written similar letters to
contractors that have business licensees with the City of Little Rock. Originally, t hey were
mailed to window replacement companies, but the last correspondence was emailed to all
contractors that do exterior work. Staff will commit to sending another round of letters to
property owners via US Mail and businesses via email to connect with the property owners.
Staff photo February 24, 2021
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following condition:
1. Obtain a building permit after the fact for all work performed on the house.
Page 8 of 17
COMMISSION ACTION: March 4, 2021
Chair Russell made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in
attendance, the applicant tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would
send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the
entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners pr esent.
Ms. Gabrahana verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearings tonight.
Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that there were late photos that were submitted to the Staff this
afternoon and he was unsure if they would be able to be displayed to the commissioners. The
photos were displayed on the monitor and Mr. Minyard proceeded with his presentation. He
summarized what has happened to the project since the last hearing and stated the staff
recommendation. He also stated that he would send another round of letters to property owners
in the district. He continued that there was an additional letter from the QQA and read the letter
into the record.
Lena Gabrahana said that she met with Mr. Minyard on site and came to the meeting in good
faith. She referred to the article on artificial siding. She likes the variation in color of the siding
and states it adds interest.
Vice Chair Holder asked if she would consider replacing the siding around the door to match the
gable. Ms. Gabrahana stated that she had wanted the flat siding around the door and did not
consider changing it and stated the overlapping was for water runoff. Vice Chair Holder
continued that replaced siding should look like the siding that was there. The new siding stands
out now. Stained wood stands out versus the painted surfaces.
Patricia Blick, QQA Executive Director, stated that the advocacy group had met and they
recommended painting the siding. Mr. Minyard said that the Staff was unsure on when the
stucco was removed or covered over.
Chair Russell stated that he was generally in favor of natural materials versus artificial. Color
and stain would not be the Commissions call. The horizontality of the siding is appropriately.
Vice Chair Holder commented that if she resided the entire house, it would be fundamentally
different. If it was an opaque stain, it would be okay.
Commissioner Aleman asked for Staff recommendation. Mr. Minyard restated it.
Commissioner Hinson stated that it was not his taste but and believe that the applicant has
compromised on this project.
Commissioner Hodge stated he had noting to add.
A motion was made to approve as submitted with Staff conditions by Chair Russell and was
seconded by Commissioner Aleman and was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noes (Holder),
and 2 absent (Frederick and Jones).
Page 9 of 17
Application
Page 10 of 17
Cover Letter page 1
Page 11 of 17
Cover Letter page 2
Page 12 of 17
Excerpt of Design Guidelines page 27
Page 13 of 17
Excerpt of Design Guidelines page 28
Page 14 of 17
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the is suance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a
structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and
style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters
within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
Excerpt from State Statue
Text of the City Ordinance:
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Excerpt from City Ordinance
Page 15 of 17
Artificial Siding Policy page 1 of 3
Page 16 of 17
Artificial Siding Policy page 2 of 3
Page 17 of 17
Artificial Siding Policy page 3 of 3