HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2008-031 Staff ReportLITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: August 18, 2008
APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson-Fisher
ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street
COA
REQUEST: Replace all Windows and Replace wire fence along street
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 501 E 7th Street.
The property's legal description is the "North 100
feet of lot 1 block 4 Johnson's addition to the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the
1960s and it is a non-contributing structure,
according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists
it as a vernacular cottage.
This application is to replace all windows and
replace wire fence along street. The bent wire fence
along 7th Street would be removed and replaced
with an ornamental iron fence with walk gate and Location of Project
drive gate. The drive gate would be operated with an automatic opener/closer.
replacement windows would be an all vinyl window with six over six panes
fiberglass half screens.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
The
with
On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the
property. A GOA was needed, but it was never filed.
On July 9, 2007, a GOA was issued for the replacement of columns on the front porch,
installing a privacy fence in the rear yard and painting the brick structure. The painting
of the brick structure and the front porch co lumn portion of the application were due to
an enforcement issue.
2
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The replacement widows are to be a "solid vinyl construction" with "Fusion welded
frame and sashes." They are white in color with a fiberglass half screen on the lower
sash. They are tilt in windows for easier cleaning.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states:
2.The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.
The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces
that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3.Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
6.Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color,
texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.
The house, which is not listed as contributing as of the 1988 survey, is still is recognized
as a record of its time. The house was built in the late 1950's to early 1960's. Although
the bulk of the historic homes in the district are not of this period, there are two ranch
style houses in the district. The wire fence along 7th Street probably predates the
house. The Guidelines state on page 66:
Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the
house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and
should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences
are also historic.
Fence: The majority of the front fence is the bent wire fence. The walk gate and the
fence sections remains as so, but the drive gate was replaced in 2005 with a chain link
gate. Later, at Staff's request, the drive gate was painted black to match the historic
gate and fence. The existing fence is bowed in places, but is still structurally sound.
3
Existing front gate Existing fence and fence to east
The fence could be cleaned of its' rust
and repainted in a black paint for metal
applications as the Secretary of Interior
Stands state in section 2 and 6 as
quoted above. Portions of the east
fence was bent wire fence but was
replaced with a wood privacy fence in
the 2007 GOA.
The proposal is to replace the fence with
an ornamental iron fence as shown
below.
.:
' • • .... • .... l:J' Existing drive gate and fence to west i: " I
j . i " .. ., ... " = •' --...r
-
_. i-
,. The thn,e rail, squa re picket renc•. with for1,ed pointed pfckar., i1 • of hi1hly dignilie d simplicity It is equally a fence for private estate s. res,dential property, sc; "or other institution s of dl11nlty:
SIZE OF PICK&TS "Sq. · Sq. ··sq. "Sq.
Gate and Fence Detail
IUTCHJN CATES No, 7 Sin1le--No. 17 Double No, 7 Sinai-No 17 Double No. 7 Sinafe-No.17 Double No. 7 Sln11le-No. 17 Double
4
The fence features square posts with ball finials. The fence has three rails with two
near the top. The pickets do not have finials, but ground points. The walk gate will
feature an arched top with a cross bar pattern in the center of the gate. The driveway
gate will be flat across the top with a cross bar pattern on it. The driveway gate will be
motorized to swing into the property.
The bent wire is historic to the district, although not of the same period as the house. It
does need to be maintained in a better fashion, as it needs sanded, primed, and
painted. The proposed fence is simple enough in design to be compatible with the
district. If constructed to a similar height as the other adjacent fences, it could "fit in"
with the neighborhood.
Windows: The windows are double hung wood windows with weights and pulleys. The
windows are in need of repair as some of the cords may have been broken/removed
and some of the windows do not close properly. The existing windows as shown on the
left above are 8 over 8 windows. (The window pictured on the left is open.) The
security bars have been on the house since at least 1978. The proposed windows are
shown to be a six over six window of all vinyl construction with a fiberglass half screen
as shown below left.
Existing window Proposed Window
The Secretary of Interior Standards states that repairing is preferable to replacement. If
something is replaced, it should be replaced with similar materials. See page two of this
report for the actual quote. The wood double hung windows should be examined by a
contractor skilled in historic preservation techniques to show that the windows are
deteriorated beyond repair. If a sash has rotten wood on it, a wood sash can be custom
made for the window. Cords to operate the windows can be replaced and make the
windows operable. The applicant has not provided proof that the windows are beyond
repair.
5
The applicant has proposed an all vinyl window as replacement windows. The
secretary of the Interiors standards state in number 6 as quoted on page 2 of this report
that if replaced, it "shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities
and, where possible, materials." Vinyl windows with a simulated 6 over 6 do not match
the old windows in design, visual thickness of jambs and muntins/mullions, and most
importantly materials•. Plastic vinyl windows were not available when the house was
constructed.
If the windows were proven repairable, Staff would suggest the repair of the windows
according to restoration standards and the installation of storm windows with full
screens that would preserve the original windows while improving energy efficiency of
the home. Storm windows with operable lower sashes would maintain the functionality
of the windows.
If the windows do prove to be beyond repair, Staff believes the alternatives to be (listed
in priority from highest to lowest): 1) replacement all wood sashes with higher efficiency
glass utilizing the existing pulleys and weights, 2) replacement of the sashes with a
wood sash clad in metal or vinyl utilizing different movement and locking mechanisms,
or 3) replacement of the entire window unit with a wood window clad in metal or vinyl.
All of these options should maintain the 8 over 8 pane arrangement.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1)Fence Replacement: Approval with the following conditions:
a)Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval.
b)Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit.
c)Fence, openers, and all hardware to be painted black.
d)No portion of fence structure shall be located in the right of way, nor swing
into the right of way.
e)Operation of gate shall be remotely operated, without the control box, control
panel, etc being placed on a pole in the right of way or on the property.
2)Window Replacement: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008
The commission was informed that the applicant had not completed the notice of
adjoining property owners as required. The applicant had been informed by Staff that
she had not met her deadline for notification. Staff requested a deferral until the July
2008 hearing. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to defer and Commissioner
Kay Tatum seconded. The motion to defer was passed with a vote or 4 ayes and 1
absent.
6
STAFF UPDATE: June 9, 2008
The applicant has requested that her item be deferred to the August 2008 agenda.
Staff supports the request for deferral. Staff will provide an updated Staff report at that
time to include all enforcement items that have been included in this item.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008
There was a discussion of the bylaws concerning the number of deferrals that an
applicant can request and the 12-month prohibition of not resubmitting the same
application. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to defer and Commissioner
Susan Bell seconded. The motion to defer was passed with a vote or 3 ayes and 2
absent.
STAFF UPDATE: August 18, 2008
The following is an analysis of the enforcement items that were revealed during an
onsite visit to the site. There are three
items under enforcement: 1) Ceiling fan
on the front porch, 2) Exterior lighting on
front fac_;:ade, and 3) Satellite dish on front
fac_;:ade.
Ceiling Fan: The Guidelines state on
Ceiling fans on page 70:
Ceiling fans on porches should be
mounted high enough so that they
cannot be seen from the street.
The photos at the right show the added
ceiling fan. All photos for this report were
taken from the public right-of-way. As
the photo shows, the fan is clearly visible
from the street. A "hugger" fan, without
the mounting pole, would have been less
visible from the street. The ceiling of the
porch is white/off white and so is the fan;
which minimizes the fan somewhat.
Close-up of ceiling fan on May 20, 2008
Exterior Lighting: The guidelines state on page 68:
1.Lighting attached to a building
Original lights should be preserved. If fixtures are added, they should be
from the period of the structure, or if new, simple in design, based on
traditional designs of the early twentieth century. They should be mounted
7
on porch ceilings or on the exterior wall adjacent to the primary entrance.
Fixtures to avoid are carriage lamps or any fixtures evocative of a period
earlier than the building.
3.Security lighting
These lights such as flood lights,
should intrude as little as possible
on the integrity of the
neighborhood. They should be
mounted on secondary and rear
facades. Shields should focus the
light down, not at neighboring
property.
Two lights have been placed on the front
of the house, one on the east and one on Close-up of east light fixture on May 20, 2008the west side. The picture to the right is
the east side of the house showing the new light fixture. A matching fixture is on the
west side of the house in the same relative location. The lights are not on the exterior
wall adjacent to the primary entrance as the guidelines suggest -that placement would
have been between the door and the closest window. These fixtures, while not
apparent as a historic reproduction, do invoke a period earlier than the mid twentieth
century. The guidelines are written to the bulk of the historic properties in the district,
which are late 19th and early 20th century structures. This structure is one of two ranch
houses from the mid 1950's that are in the district. Therefore, placing lights of an early
twentieth century design would be not appropriate for this house. If these lights are
functioning as security lights, they should have been placed on the secondary facades
of the house and not focus light on adjoining property as the guidelines state.
Houses of this period often have/had lights on posts mounted in the front yard sidewalk
to the front door an/or near the driveway. These lights were often gaslights that were
converted to electric lights at a later date. A post mounted light in the front yard with a
painted metal squarish lantern would be appropriate to provide security lighting.
Satellite Dish: The guidelines state on page 70:
Satellite dishes should never be installed in front yards or where readily
visible in side yards.
8
This satellite dish has been mounted on
the roof on the northeast portion of the
roof and is visible from 7th Street. The
Guidelines do not cover mounting
satellite dishes on the roof, but do
discuss visibility from the street.
Satellite dishes have changed over time.
Once they were four or more feet in
diameter and were very visible from all
angles. Now they are less than 2 feet
wide and are typically mounted on roofs.
They do require specific placement to Close-up of satellite dish on May 20, 2008
work properly. The placement of the dish needs to point to the south with as little tree
interference as possible and be at the prescribed angle based on the latitude of the
structure. If a house has an orientation with the front of the house facing north, the best
placement of the dish, to work effectively, is to place the dish on the north side of the
roof, hence the front of the structure. While this is not the optimum location of the dish,
it is probably the best location on this structure.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this appl ication.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1)Fence Replacement: Approval with the following conditions:
a)Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval.
b)Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit.
c)Fence, openers, and all hardware to be painted black.
d)No portion of fence structure shall be located in the right of way, nor swing into
the right of way.
e)Operation of gate shall be remotely operated, without the control box, control
panel, etc being placed on a pole in the right of way or on the property.
2)Window Replacement: Denial
3)Ceiling Fan: Approval.
4)Lighting fixtures: Denial
5)Satellite Dish: Approval with the condition to remove it if service with the
supplier is ever discontinued.
COMMIS SION ACTION: August18,2008
Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation on 501 East ih Street.
Commissioner Bob Woods asked if it is not clear that this is a historic property, a non
contributing property, how appropriate are the guidelines for this property. City Attorney
Debra Weldon answered that it was not a legal issue. Mr. Minyard stated that it was in
the district, state statute, and the ordinance talk about the additions to the house and
9
that the Guidelines should be applied. The commission should analyze if it is
appropriate to the age of the house.
Commissioner Wood spoke about the national act to establish the historic districts and
non-contributing structures. Ms. Weldon responded that the Federal law established
the state law and the state enabled the to city ordinance and the commission should
review in accordance to the historic integrity of the neighborhood. It is still unclear in his
mind of the relevance of the guidelines to this structure. Mr. Minyard stated that this
issue could be added to the work program to be decided this afternoon.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower added that it was in the district and the commission is to
protect the sense of the district, not just the individual contributing structures.
Commissioner Wood asked Staff to clarify the statement "the house was a record of its
time." Mr. Minyard stated that the house being built in the 50's and 60's, it reflects what
was typically built in the 50's and 60's.
Mr. Minyard stated that the required notices were mailed and that the notice to the city
was received by Mr. Minyard.
The applicant, Tonya Robinson Fisher made a presentation of her items stating why she
desired the changes -mainly security with additional lighting. She introduced her
husband John Fisher.
John Fisher spoke in favor of the application talking about unwanted neighbors and dark
areas around house.
Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that other houses in the neighborhood that had vinyl
windows and that she could obtain an 8-panel window. She continued that she has
worked hard to bring her property up while mindful of the integrity of the neighboring
properties.
Commissioner Wood asked if the new windows were put in, if the security bars would
be put back up. Ms. Robinson Fisher responded that the bars could be reinstalled and
that she wished to do so. Commissioner Wood noted that the Answerfone building has
security bars but that they were much less noticeable. Ms. Robinson Fisher said that
she would be willing to look at other options as long as if it would not be too expensive.
He asked that these bars be less obvious from the street.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the fence was iron or aluminum. Ms. Robinson
Fisher stated it was iron as far as she knew. Ms. Robinson Fisher wants to be similar to
the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Wiedower asked when the lights were installed. Ms. Robinson Fisher
said it was in the summer and that the fan was later. Commissioner Wiedower noted
that the applicant was here last July to gain approval of the house being painted and the
10
columns in the front. She continued that she was sympathetic to owners that do not
know that they are in a historic district, but that Ms. Robinson Fisher knew she was in a
historic district. Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that she thought the light fixtures were a
modest change and that it was okay to change. She replaced a light that was there with
a ceiling fan. She stated that she underestimated the importance of the lights in relation
to the fence. Commissioner Wiedower asked if it was more expensive to run the wiring
than to just replace a light. Ms. Robinson Fisher said the wiring was run on the outside
of the brick.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that the windows are an unusual size and asked about
obtaining them to size. She asked if anything was going to be filled in. Ms. Robinson
Fisher stated that three companies could make them in the same size with 8 over 8.
She did not find anything ...
Commissioner Susan Bell asked about the repairing the windows. Are they beyond
repair? Ms. Robinson Fisher stated that the repaired two window in the back of the
house. The sashes do not meet in the middle; they waste energy and are drafty. They
have to be propped open.
Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if she had considered storm windows. Ms.
Robinson Fisher said if they could find storm windows that would allow them to have
fresh air, they could t would consider storm windows. Commissioner Walls stated that
the vinyl windows replacement was the least sensitive solution to the issue.
Commissioner Bell stated that storm windows could be installed on the interior of the
house.
Commissioner Wiedower asked Commissioner Walls if the storm windows can be
installed and security bars be left in place. Commissioner Walls was unaware if this
could work.
Chairman Peters asked Commissioner Walls to clarify if he was opposed to the vinyl
windows. Commissioner Walls would prefer the storm windows versus vinyl windows.
Commissioner Wood commented on the philosophical difference of the storm windows
being added or replacing the windows in an application like this, especially on a non
contributing structure. He is sensitive to preserve the historic district and it's integrity. It
is probably a mass produced windows, not a significant architectural value. The view
from the street would be difficult to see the difference. He is assuming that the goal was
to mimic the windows. He continued that he thought it was preferable to replace a
window rather than to slap a storm window over it.
Commissioner Walls commented that there is a visual difference in the vinyl and the
storm windows and that he did not want to imply that putting a storm window on it was
preferable with replacing it with an appropriate window.
11
Chairman Marshall Peters commented that the Historic District Commission is charged
with protecting each structure as we found it. Every building can be a contributing
structure at a later time. If changes are allowed to be made, it could be made non
contributing at that time. The commission is charge with preservation of each structure.
From the New Orleans conference, there was program on the use of vinyl windows. To
recoup the cost of replacing the windows takes 22 years. If a vinyl window breaks, the
whole windows must be replaced, as opposed to a wood window where one part can be
replaced.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if she got a quote on wood window replacements. Ms.
Robinson Fisher replied that it was too expensive. She did not have an actual quote,
but the contractor stated it was a lot more expensive. Commissioner Wiedower
encouraged her to get actual bids, contractors are used to installing one type of
windows, therefore may not give consideration to other types of windows. Ms.
Robinson Fisher stated it costs too much to replace them in wood. Mr. Fisher stated
that if the windows were repaired, they would still be single pane windows and not as
efficient as the new windows.
Commissioner Walls stated that he would not recommend replacing a wood window
with a non-wood clad window. Ideally, a clad window is a better quality window. You
can get a broad spectrum of quality of windows. Some have applied muntins.
Ms. Robinson Fisher asked for additional time to seek out a window that would be
suitable to us and something that would be approved by you.
Commissioner Wood restated the options on the windows: 1) repair the windows on the
front with storm windows on the outside or inside and have vinyl in the back, 2) a solid
wood clad window all over and 3) storm windows all over.
Commissioner Bell stated that the 8 over 8 were unique and it should be preserved.
Commissioner Walls asked the applicant to consider a different option for the front
fagade windows versus the side. The commission does have a responsibility to the
front facade of the structure.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not have issues with the fence, satellite
dish, or ceiling fan. She is prepared to take action o those tonight. She is concerned
with what the process would be to come back with a different application.
There was a discussion on the time restraints of reapplying, deferring an application, at
the applicants request of the commissions request.
Commissioner Wiedower asked the applicant about the timeline for the changes.
Commissioner Wood clarified that those time frames were maximums.
Commissioner Walls asked for clarification on the application being voted on in its
entirely versus removing or deferring part of the application. Ms. Robinson Fisher
asked if the reapplication would require additional mailing and abstract list. Mr. Minyard
12
stated that the abstract list could be reused and the cost would be for the mailing. The
city does the legal ad.
Chairman Peters can we suspend bylaws for a deferral -continue to next month for a
portion of the application? Ms. Weldon asked some time to review it. Commissioner
Walls asked what the intent would be for that. Commissioner Wiedower stated it would
be for the re-notification costs.
Boyd Maher, AHPP, spoke to the commission to discourage replacement windows. The
50-year rule for contributing is a guideline; New York uses a 30-year rule. As
preservationists, we are not to just protect appearance, but to consider materials also.
Vinyl windows will fail after 1 O to 12 years. Wood windows can be repaired; AHPP can
provide energy conservation tips and brochures.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if AHPP had a contractor list for repairs. Mr. Maher
said that he would provide a list of contractors. Mr. Maher said that the cost of repair is
irrelevant, if appropriate to the structure. An economic hardship should be a separate
discussion. Commissioner Wiedower state that the charge was to have a vibrant
neighborhood and that there is a subjective nature to the COA's and guidelines. Mr.
Maher stated that the cost should be factored in individually. Each structure should be
judged individually. Commissioner Wood admires zeal of the AHPP. One goal is to
balance philosophy with reality. Part of it is to establish community and part of concern
is to make it affordable to maintain houses. If HDC becomes too strict, miss a point
there of living there and creating a neighborhood.
Chairman Peters asked if the commission was to ask a CPA to provide records if a
hardship were stated. Commissioner Walls remembered some discussion of the
hardship of the owner versus hardship of the property. Is it economically feasible to
spend that much money on the house? Ms. Weldon said that the statue states that it is
economic hardship to the applicant.
Commissioner Bell said that there was an example of internal windows at the Egyptian
house on Broadway.
Ms. Weldon said in section 23-118, the bylaws are based on ordinance. The application
can reschedule an application to defer an application.
Commissioner Wiedower said that she was comfortable deferring all or part of
application but did not get sense from the applicant on what they wanted. Chairman
Peters stated it was up the applicant.
Ms. Robinson Fisher asked for a deferral on the windows portion of the item. Chairman
Peters stated it could only be deferred thirty days. Mr. Minyard stated that in the
application packet a submittal must be in to staff three weeks prior to the meeting, which
would be today which would meant that there is not time.
13
Commissioner Wood noted that the deferral on the windows and lighting. There was
more discussion on windows. Commissioner Wiedower stated she was not comfortable
with the lighting and was not ready to approve the request.
Ms. Robinson Fisher stated she replace the lighting because the motion detector
lighting did not work properly. They had rotted the wood of the soffits. Commissioner
Wiedower commented that these could be installed without the motion detector and just
turn them on with a switch when you want them on.
Commissioner Walls commented that the decorative fixture was not appropriate and
that he was okay with the replacement of the security lighting. Commissioner Wiedower
asked if the Staff had any ideas on this issue. Mr. Minyard stated that they do make a
light fixture similar to what was there before but are better sealed against water, placed
against soffit. The bulbs are orientated so that they do not take on such amount of
water. Staff could support gong back with a better quality two light security light with or
without a motion detector. The existing lights could be used in the back yard.
Commissioner Bell commented on the placement of the lights and which board they
rotted.
Commissioner Wood asked if Staff would have an issue if the applicant replaced the
fixtures with a more appropriate style of light. Mr. Minyard said that it then becomes a
location of the fixture issue and the location was inappropriate.
Chairman Peters stated that code would not allow the wire brought down as it is shown.
Mr. Minyard clarified that the appropriate locations for decorative lights would be next to
the door between it and the next window. Security lights with or without the motion
detector would be appropriate on the corners of the house on the soffits or eaves.
Replacing the security lights would be a maintenance issue.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the GOA with staff
recommendation regarding the fence, fan, and satellite dish with recommendation of
staff. She continued to move to deny the lighting fixtures and defer the window
replacement. Staff clarified which meeting it was to be deferred to. Ms. Robinson
Fisher said that it would not be possible.
Ms. Weldon stated the commission cannot defer specific parts of the item. It would be
in effect granting two COA's She did not recommend that the motion stand. Staff
offered that Staff could do the mailing on the next GOA. Mr. Robinson must reapply
whether she was denied or she withdrew the windows or lighting.
Commissioner Walls seconded motion. Based on counsel's advice, Commissioner
Wiedower withdrew her motion. Commissioner Wiedower asked Ms. Robinson Fisher if
she wanted to remove the windows from the application. If it does not add significant
amounts of money, she will do it.
14
Commissioner Wiedower made another motion to approve the application with the
exception of window replacement begin withdrawn from consideration by applicant and
approve fence, ceiling fan, satellite dish as per staff recommendations. She moved that
the lighting fixtures be denied.
Ms. Robinson Fisher would like to offer withdrawal of window replacements from the
application. She plans to re-file in October.
Commissioner Wood asked the applicant to remove the lighting from the application and
feels that a compromise could be reached.
Ms. Robinson Fisher asked to request the have lights deferred to October meeting.
Commissioner Wiedower withdrew motion.
Commissioner Wiedower made a final motion to approve the COA as requested with
withdraw of lighting and windows and approve fence, ceiling fan and satellite dish per
staff recommen dations. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion passed with 5
ayes.
There was a five-minute recess following this item.
15