Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2005-001 STAFF REPORT MINUTESLITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD Thursday, February 10, 2005 I. Roll Call and Finding a Quorum A Quorum was present being three (3) in number II. Members Present: Wesley Walls Members Absent: City Attorney: Staff Present: Marshall Peters Wyatt Weems Terrance Bolden Deborah Weldon Tony Bozynski Brian Minyard III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 2, 2004 and the January 6, 2005 minutes of the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The minutes were approved as presented. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to approve both sets of minutes and Commissioner Wyatt Weems seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. IV. Finding of compliance with Notice requirements of all Subjects The applicant for 504 East Sixth Street was asked to produce the mail receipts by Staff. The applicant then made a phone call to have the certificates delivered. V. New Certificates of Appropriateness A motion was made to amend the agenda by Commissioner Weems to vote on 420 East Ninth Street before hearing 504 East Sixth Street. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. Item V b: 420 East Ninth Street A motion was made by Commissioner Walls to withdraw the application without prejudice and was seconded by Commissioner Weems. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about the rental sign being up on the property. He stated that it was permanently affixed. Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development Director, stated that Staff would check into it, both guidelines and sign ordinance and if it was a violation, a notice would be issued. A recess of ten minutes was taken to allow time for the 504 East 6th Street notices to arrive. At this time, the certificates for 504 East Sixth Street were not available for inspection. Another motion was made to amend the agenda by Commissioner Weems to move the hearing of 504 East Sixth Street to the end of the agenda. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. VII. Other Matters Item VII a. Multiple Commission Meeting Boyd Maher of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program made the presentation that summarized the events of the meeting as stated in the agenda package. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that there was a meeting set up with Myra Jones, liaison of the Little Rock Realtors Association, for next week as part of the implementation of the meeting. Also, checking on the Realtor.com website was under way. Commissioner Peters was concerned that the AREC (Arkansas Real Estate Commission) should be a key player in the education of realtors in their continuing education process. ItemVII b: Revised Design Guideline Book Mr. Minyard stated that he had received a bibliography for the guideline book from Carolyn Newbern. It was also noted that the Commission would need to vote on the final draft of the guidelines when finished and content approved by the commission. The commissioners were concerned that the latest changes would be included in the draft. Commissioner Walls stated that he had the photographic images on his laptop and would show the commissioners the progress of the photos after the meeting. Commissioner Walls stated that the goal was to have the photography complete by the end of the month for staff coordination to insert into the guidelines book. Carolyn Newbern asked if Staff had the graphics for the "column" to be placed on the cover. (The column design is the logo used for the Little Rock Historic District signage.) Mr. Minyard said that Staff did have the original and that it could be scanned and placed on the cover. Carolyn Newbern wanted the article titled Historic Commission Realigns with Planning De artment that was in the February 2005 issue of the Chronicle to be included in the minutes. She also handed out membership applications to commission members and staff that were not current members of the Quapaw Quarter Association. - — — Item Vb: 504 East Sixth Street Ms. Deborah Weldon, of the City Attorney's office stated that the notices were complete. Commissioner Peters advised the applicant that with three commissioners present, that they could ask for a deferral if they wished. The motion would require all three of the commissioners present in order to pass. The applicant stated that they would like to proceed with the item. Commissioner Peters made a disclosure that he been in real estate transactions with the applicant prior to this. He stated that he has no financial interest in the property at this time. Mr. Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. He stated the original application is different than the application before the commissioners today. The original application included replacing the windows, removing shutters, painting the exterior of the building, construction of a parking lot in the rear with landscaping and a six foot fence surrounding the property with a security gate. He stated the staff recommendation of denial as filed but elaborated on the six conditions that would have to be met in order for staff to approve the COA. When covering the six conditions, the applicant's architect, John Jarrard, stated that the wind s will not be replaced, they will be repaired. The shutters will be removed and(EI45.Xarido, owner of the property, stated that her crew would repoint the brick if necessary to repair after the shutters are removed. Mr. Jarrard stated the parking lot would be of concrete and landscaped to city code. He stated that he would check with Bob Brown of the City to verify the requirements. Mr. Minyard stated the fence that was shown on the plans that the commission received at the hearing was different than the application. After questions and discussion, the following was disclosed to the commission: The fence at the south east corner of the building that is approximately seven and one-half feet long will be a 6' tall dog-ear picket to be stained or painted to match the proposed fence at the Rainwater Flats development. It will have a gate in the fence. Rainwater Flats Development will fence the eastern and northern boundary of the site. The wood fence at the northeast corner of the building will be offset 3' from the building edge and also be 6' in height dog-ear wood fence. The existing short brick wall will be left undisturbed. The western property line will have the same 6' fence from the northwest corner of the property to the corner of the adjacent structure to the west. (The wood fence would be offset from the brick wall of Trapnall Hall.) At that point, an iron fence will be placed on the property line and extend approximately three quarters of the way toward the front of the building. Mr. Jarrard said that the gate was placed at the point in order to allow the gate to swing in, the placement of the windows, and clearance of the porch area. The gate is twelve feet wide and swings against the building. Mr. Bozynski asked if you could stack a car in the area before the gate opens. The answer was yes. Commissioner Walls stated that he understood the gate placement. Commissioner Peters asked if he was going to raise the sidewalk. Mr. Jarrard stated that at this time there had not been a grading study of the site and the he did not know at this time. Mr. Jarrard further stated that the fence did screen the air conditioning units from the street. The trash cans will be placed in the rear of the building. The side porch is the entry for three of the units, with the front door only serving one residence. Commissioner Peters asked about the elevational difference with the sidewalk and the drive on the west side of the building. He continued to ask if the concrete was going to be raised and the potential for accidents. Mr. Minyard asked for details of the side entry porch. Mr. Jarrard stated that it had to be brought up to code. The brackets were too low for clearance. He continued that with it being the entrance for three of the units, that it should be more gracious. He said that the porch will have a turned metal roof on it to match the roof on the front and it will be painted to match. The columns are similar to the ones on the front. John Greer, representing the Department of Heritage, which manages Trapnall Hall, had two points to raise. The first point was that Trapnall Hall hosts outdoor parties in the rear and the appearance of the fence would be important. He asked of Mr. Jarrard, which way the fence would face. Mr. Jarrard stated that the ordinance required him to place the finished side of the fence toward Trapnall and the rails and posts would face the parking lot. The second point was that the old structure that used to be there actually acted as a retaining wall to hold up the soil for the backyard of Trapnall. He continued that there is a brick wall that is cracked and would be coming down. He was concerned that the two -foot change in elevation between the lots would create problems in the future and wanted an answer from the applicant about how the applicant proposed to solve it. There was discussion and Staff produced pictures showing the conditions with the Trapnall Hall property being about two feet higher in elevation over the existing parking lot elevation. Mr. Greer stated that he thought that there should be a retaining wall and if the commission really wanted a concrete retaining wall, or a brick retaining wall, etc. When the old building was removed, in essence, a retaining wall was removed. Ms. Tirado stated that she would install the fence as shown on the drawings inside her property line. Commissioner Walls asked how high the fence was going to be. She answered that the fence would be six feet in height and be installed along the ground. A discussion arose among the commissioners about approving the application conditionally concerning the retaining wall. If a retaining wall were going to be built, Staff would have to sign off on the specifications of the wall. Ms. Tirado asked that if the Rainwater Flats fence changed, hypothetically, would that change her application. The discussion ended that the fence at Caroline Apartments would need to match the Rainwater Flats fence. A motion was made by Commissioner Walls to approve the application as submitted with staff recommendations of 1,2 3,5 and 6 and that Staff approve of any retaining wall fence variations on the west wall. Commissioner Weems seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, absent and 1 vacant position. A motion was made to adjourn at 6:25. 0� UTTl� 0 City of Little Rock v I1� 11 (� Department of Planning and Development Historic l� 723 West Markham Street District - „Y Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Commission �� Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 10, 2005 APPLICANT: Silas Valdez ADDRESS: 504East Sixth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 The applicant wishes to replace existing windows, eliminate existing shutters, COA REQUEST: construct a parking area with required landscaping, and construct a fence surrounding the property, PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 504 East Sixth Street. The property's legal description is "Part of Trapnell_ Block in Stevenson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas: described as: Beginning on the North line east of 6th Street at a point which is 260 feet West of the centerline of Sherman Street; run thence West on the said North line of East 6th Street a distance of 60 feet; then North at right angles 124 feet; thence East at right angles 60 feet; then South 124 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT a strip off the east side 1 1/2 feet wide." The house is a c 1920's Craftsman style apartment house that is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style became the most common architectural style in America in the early part of the 20th century and often coupled with the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized by irregular plans with low-pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers. Windows are double hung -sash with three or more vertical lights in the top sash and a single light bottom sash. In many examples, rafter ends and knee braces are visible below. This property has definite Craftsman characteristics because of the time period in which it was built, the side porch design and overhang, and the wide roof eaves that expose the knee braces. The Caroline apartments at 504 E. Street. ANALYSIS: There are several criteria related to this case in the District's guidelines. The Windows Design Guideline outlines seven guidelines, six which are directly related to this case. A, C, D, E, F, and G. A. Windows should be preserved in their original location, size and design, and with their original materials and number of panes. B. Windows should not be added to primary facades or to secondary facades where visible. C. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in -kind to match the originals in material and design. D. Windows should not have snap on or flush muntins. E. Windows screens and/or storms should be wood or baked on or anodized aluminum and fit within the windows frames, not overlap the window frames. F. Windows should not have shutters unless the building originally had them, the shutters are of louvered wood construction, and the shutters fit the window opening (so that if closed, they will cover the window opening). G. Windows should not have security bars where visible from the street. In this case the applicant wishes to replace existing windows with new vinyl windows. The Design guidelines state that windows should be repaired rather than replaced. In the case that they are replaced they should be of like materials. The applicant's proposed vinyl windows will not be compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. Vinyl replacement windows typically differ in their proportions and dimensions from traditional wood windows and can distort the appearance of the house. The applicant has suggested that the new windows will be of the same size and should not pose a significant change in their appearance. Staff feels that even if they are the same size, the windows will look significantly different because the vinyl material is weaker than the traditional wood material and will require additional area to support the window glass, which will harm the overall character of the building. Vinyl windows also can be deformed by excessive heat and exposure to sunlight as well as other vinyl window elements like foam insulation materials. Furthermore, the addition of any window besides wood will most likely result in snap in or flush muntins, which is not desired. Staff suggests that the applicant repair the existing windows or replace them with similar wood windows to preserve the integrity of the building and surrounding district. The Shutters Design Guidelines outline two guidelines, all of which are directly related to this case. A. Shutters should not be added unless the building originally had them, the shutters are of louvered wood construction, and the shutters will fit the window opening (so that if closed, they will cover the window opening). B. Also graphic examples are included: No- Undersized Shutters Mal- No- Undersized Shutters "I" No- Undersized Shutters U1:3 No- Undersized Shotters 1W The applicant has indicated that he would like to remove the shutters from the building. Staff has no objections to the shutter removal because they are under -sized shutters and were not part of the orig-inal design of the building. Staff feels that removal should be done carefully as to not damage the brick or mortar behind the shutters, or damage the windows. The Parking Design Guidelines outline four guidelines, three which are directly related to this case: B, C, and D. A. Parking lots should not be located in the front yards of houses. B. Parking lots should be gravel or smooth concrete instead of asphalt, aggregate, or brick for houses. C. Parking lots should be screened through planting of hedges, shrubs, trees, or fences at edges and in medians within. D. For commercially used houses, churches, apartment buildings, or schools should be located in rear yards if possible, but when necessary in a side yard, and should be located no closer than the front facade of the structure. The applicant has indicated a rear parking area with access off of East Sixth Street. Currently the driveway is constructed of asphalt material and is sinking and cracking. Staff feels that a parking area in the rear is appropriate and that landscaping should meet the requirements detailed for parking areas and/or other city ordinances, whichever is more stringent. Within the Historic District asphalt parking lots are highly discouraged. The rear parking area should be constructed out of concrete to comply with the Design Guidelines. Staff also feels that the driveway should be replaced with concrete to be consistent with the rear parking lot and preserve the character of the historic district. The current driveway is not built to historic district standards and is in need of repair. The Fences Design Guidelines outlines two guidelines related to this case: D and E. D. Fences of wood pickets may be located in front or rear yards, generally following property lines, and should be painted or stained light, pale white, or beige tones; to be no taller than three feet; have pickets no wider than three inches; and a design which is compatible with and proportionate to the house. E. Fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards; generally no taller than six feet; set back from the front fagade (wall plane) if the structure at least half -way back from the front to the back walls; of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox); stained or painted to blend with the structure; and of a design compatible with the structure. The applicant has not submitted a detailed fencing plan to accompany this application. He has indicated six-foot wooden fence that would surround the property. This six foot wooden fence would have a security gate at the entrance to the driveway. The guidelines allow six-foot fences in the rear of the property and alongside the property lines. A six- foot wooden fence could be allowable at the rear of the building and alongside the east and west property lines as long as it ended midway between the front to the back walls of the building. Staff does not feel that a six foot wooden gate, or a six foot fence fronting East Sixth Street would be appropriate. Furthermore, Staff has concerns regarding how the placement of a fence on the western edge of the property and how it will affect access to the adjacent property. The recommendations state that front fences should be constructed of pickets no higher than three feet, stained light, and painted a pale white or beige color. The guidelines do not specifically address security gates, however, gates should respect the integrity of the historic district. A brick wall and gate exists at the northeast corner of the building and should be preserved. The applicant has indicated that four garbage collectors will be located adjacent to the western side of the building, south of the side entrance. The design guidelines state that garbage units should be located in the rear of the building and screened from view with fencing or shrubbery. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as presented. However, Staff would recommend approval under the following conditions: 1. That existing windows be repaired rather than replaced, if replaced, they are of like material and similar to the original design. Also during repair or replacement that exterior brickwork or ledges are not damaged. 2. Removal of the shutters is permitted as long as damage is not caused to the building exterior and repairs are made to the mortar and brick the to which the shutters were fastened. 3. The construction of the parking area and access is of smooth concrete, designed to city code, and landscaped per parking lot requirements. 4. The six foot fence follows the rear and east side property lines not to exceed the midway point of the buildings front and rear. Staff recommends that a six fence on the western edge of the property should only be alongside the parking area and meet up with the security gate. That any front fence along any part of East Sixth Street be a maximum of three feet and constructed of pickets of a craftsman style. That the brick wall and gate at the northeast edge of the building be preserved and or repaired. That the security gate is located at the northwest corner of the building to mirror the existing brick wall at the northeast corner and is constructed of either iron or wood. Plans for the security gate will have to be submitted to staff for final approval by the Commission. 5. That any trash receptacles be located in the rear of the property or screened from view from the street. Plans for screening will have to be submitted to staff for final approval by the Commission. 6. Any plans for air conditioning units are submitted to Staff for review and must not be readily visible from the street and should be screened with shrubbery and fencing. Any window air conditioning units should be located on the north fagade ONLY and should not result in the replacement or removal of the original sash.