Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2005-008 STAFF REPORTDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK 723 West Markham Street HISTORIC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT Phone: 501 371-4790 Fax: 501 399-3435 COMMISSION ( ) ( ) STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 2005 APPLICANT: Scott Manuel ADDRESS: 419 East Eighth Street, Little Rock, AA 72202 COA REQUEST: Construction of a retaining wall and walkway; repair and replacement of mortar; roof replacement; addition of a deck and gutter system. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 419 East Eighth Street. The property's legal description is "The Middle 1 /3 of Lot 11 and 12, Block 60, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house is a ca. 1886 Italianate and English Revival home that has been previously converted into apartments. It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Italianate style is characterized by an asymmetrical or L- shaped building plan, wide eaves heavily decorated with The property at 419 East r Street. brackets, cornices, and other trim. Decorative features were either cut limestone, cast iron, or carved wood. Windows, with round arches, had decorative hoods with a flat design incised in stone or wood. Doors are usually four -paneled, and windows were double -hung with 1/1, 2/2, or 4/4 lights. Front and side porches had turned posts and large arched brackets. The southern interpretation of the Italianate style expands porches to two-story galleries on several sides, to provide shade and catch breezes. English or Tudor Revival architectural styles, popular in the early 20`h century, used the combination of brick, stone, stucco and half-timbering of medieval English buildings. Picturesque and asymmetrical, they featured steeply -pitched roofs of tile or slate, leaded windows in diamond patterns. ANALYSIS: Currently on the property, two retaining walls exist that mirror each other on both sides of a central walkway to the front door. A single car driveway accesses a rear parking area on the property's western side. The retaining wall in question to be covered has experienced slight breaking and cracking as a result of nearby trees and their root systems. The applicant has already constructed a new retaining wall in front of the old one before obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant did not know that any of his work would require a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant has supplied pictures of the new retaining wall (exhibits 2, 3, and 4 on the attached pages) that has been constructed in front of the existing wall. The applicant has noted that the existing wall will remain in place and the new wall is more of a veneer on the front. Staff has visited the site and noted that all of the original cinder blocks are indeed still behind the new retaining wall. Since the wall is still there it could be restored in the future. The Design Guidelines book states that concrete walls built prior to 1945 should be preserved and maintained. Judging by the appearance of this retaining wall staff cannot determine the date of original construction. Staff has looked at neighborhood surveys (1978 and 1988) that have pictures of the property and noticed the wall. Staff feels that the wall could have been kept in good condition if previous owners (not the applicant) had properly maintained the wall, landscaping, and not planted/or allowed a volunteer tree so close to the wall. Upon further inspection staff has noticed that these bricks were cast with the design, stacked, and joined together by mortar. They are somewhat representational of the early versions of split face cinder block. This style of cinder block wall is common on Eighth Street. Currently a majority of homes on the south side of the street have similar retaining walls. All of the walls have variations from one another keeping them indeed unique. Several of these retaining walls are in disrepair. In this case it may be possible to repair cracks and mortar and keep the existing wall. The one problem with this property is that a tree has grown and destroyed a section of the wall. The previous Top: The existing walls location, the new wall, and an page shows the location of the old wall, new retaining wall, existing tree. Center. Detailing on corner. Bottom: The and the tree. It is obvious that the tree has grown into the cinder blocks used were cast in a mold. place where the wall use to be. When Staff investigated the original wall by probing the planter, they found that the original wall followed a straight line, then jutted away from the tree where it had encroached. To repair and ensure that the alignment of the wall is the same, the tree and its root system would have to be removed. Staff has concerns about current retaining wall that has been constructed. The current retainer wall block could bend and buckle easier than the existing cinderblock wall if not installed correctly. To install a Windsor Stone retaining wall correctly one must first create an adequate base of sand (approximately 3/4") on top of an aggregate and fines base. This will help prevent sinking of the retaining wall when fully built. Another important element of the wall also is adequate backfill. A gravel backfill should be used to ensure that proper drainage will occur. Large retaining walls may require pipes to ensure that water is not trapped behind the wall. If this is not done correctly, similar problems that occurred on the original wall could happen to this one more quickly. On a second matter, the applicant has also replaced a brick pathway with a new brick paver path. According to the applicant the old brick pathway had become a tripping hazard. The Design Guidelines indicate that sidewalks original to the property or district should be preserved. If they have deteriorated and are dangerous, replace them with similar materials (stone, brick or concrete.) Newly introduced sidewalks should be brick or smooth concrete in patterns, dimensions, colors, and placement like original or early sidewalks in the district. They should not be asphalt or concrete surfaced with aggregate or pebbles. If indeed the brick pathway was in disrepair the new paver system could be considered appropriate. Maintenance will need to be provided in the early life of this pathway to ensure that it remains level and does not collapse in parts. The applicant indicated that he prepped the ground below the paver pathway and intends on maintaining it. On a third matter, the Roofs and Gutters Design Guidelines indicates that roofs should be preserved in their original size, shape, and pitch, with original features and, if possible, with original roofing material. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required if it is only repair or replacement of an existing roof. In this application the applicant has asked to re -shingle his roof. Staff is unknowing of the original roof material. Currently the roof is a gray composite shingle roof. The design guidelines suggest that new composite shingle be dark gray or black for this style home. In the event of replacement staff would advise the applicant to be sensitive to the existing eaves, the exposed rafters, and the chimney. This particular roof repair does not require a Certificate of Appropriateness. Fourthly, the applicant has also indicated that he would like to install new gutters, downspouts, and flashing on the home to prevent additional water damage to the structure. Currently water collects around the foundation, which could lead to problems in the future. Currently no gutters exist on the building. The guidelines indicate that boxed or built-in gutters should be repaired rather than replaced if possible. For new gutter systems the hang -on, half -round gutters are recommended. The guidelines do not recommend ogee (a manufactured gutter with somewhat S-shaped profile). Downspouts should be located away from significant architectural features on the front of the house. In this particular application the applicant has indicated that placement of the gutters would be on the north and west facades of the building of the building. The eaves are the only part of the roof that the gutter system could be attached to. Adding a fascia to these eves could result in a loss of character to the roof. A half round gutter may be the most appropriate to use on the structure. That type of gutter system would allow for the eaves to remain exposed. The use of gutters, flashing, and downspouts should provide enough drainage to avoid water damage to the structure. Downspouts should not be located near the front facade of the building unless absolutely necessary. The downspout location most appropriate on the western facade is where the two flat roof plains join. The most appropriate place for the downspout on the north facade is at the northeast corner of the building. The applicant has indicated that a gutter system would run along the pitched section of the north facade. Staff feels the installation of flashing would be more effective and minimize the visual impact additional gutters to the structure. Fifthly, the applicant has asked for permission to perform re -pointing and tuckpointing of the brick on the building; and repair of the stucco in the future. Staff has no objections to tuckpointing if the new mortar is mixed correctly and does not harm the brick. Before beginning any work on tuckpointing the applicant should contact staff regarding proper procedure. The National Park Service has prepared a preservation brief regarding re -pointing mortar joints in historic masonry. Our Office can supply the applicant with resources on repairing mortar. The deck design guidelines indicate that decks should be located on the rear and be screened from street view with fencing and/or evergreen shrubs or trees. They should be subordinate to the house, in size and scale, and should be stained or painted to match or blend with the house. Balusters and railings should match the style of the house. Staff has indicated that the proposed porch repairs do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness since it is not visible from the street. Staff recommends that the applicant contact staff before beginning work on the porch and that the applicant obtains all necessary permits required for repair or construction of the porch. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approval of the rain gutter system if it is constructed using a hang -on, half -round gutter system with no additional fascia or soffit attached. 2. Approval of the paver sidewalk system. 3. Approval of the mortar work with staff review before beginning any re -pointing work to obtain proper guidance. 4. Staff does not think that the materials of the recently constructed retaining wall are consistent with the overall character of Eighth Street. Staff would be more supportive of repair of the existing wall or more materials similar in color and texture around the area where the tree has disrupted the current wall. MINUTES, JUNE 2, 2005: Commission Chair Carolyn Newbern asked the Commissioners if this case would be a conflict of interests for any Commissioners. No Commissioners felt a conflict of interest was present. Staff member Charles Bloom made a brief presentation to the Commission. The applicant, Scott Manuel, stated to the Commission that he constructed part of the proposed retaining wall unknowing of a COA requirement. He said the materials chosen were based off of materials he has seen elsewhere. Manuel noted that he had contacted a contractor to see what would need to be done and how much it would the cost of repair to the wall. The contractor told Manuel that the wall would have to be reconstructed and cost approximately $3500-5000. He indicated his new wall was more cost effective and could allow him to invest additional dollars into physical improvements to the 100 year old structure. Manuel also presented a sample shingle he would like to use to repair the current roof and color samples for future painting.. Chair Newbern noted that the Commission does not have authority over paint colors. The applicant and commission acknowledged her comment. Chair Newbern asked the applicant about the choice of the blocks for the retaining wall and whether or not those were based off of exhibits 11 and 12. The applicant replied yes and clarified that the small wall closest to the building in the picture gave him the idea for his retaining wall. Chair Newbern asked if anyone was present to comment or ask questions about the application. No one was present to comment on the application. Chair Newbern asked the applicant what type of tree was in front of the house and if the applicant thought it was worth saving. The applicant did not know but said it does have pink flowers on it at times of the year, does not find it necessary to keep, but will let it remain because of the cost of removal. Commissioner Serebrov asked for clarification of staff recommendation number four and for the cost of replacement of the wall. Staff clarified that the wall part of the application was to allow the "new" wall and an additional retaining wall in front of the currently visible retaining wall. Commissioner Serebrov questioned whether or not a more original wall could be constructed just around the base of the tree. Mr. Manuel noted that the contractor he contacted said that the existing wall and a new wall of the same style does not allow for adequate drainage of water. The applicant stated that this solution is the most cost effective for him and any damaged cinder blocks or missing blocks can be replaced easily at little cost. Mr. Manuel also noted that he would take it down if he had to. Mr. Manuel also added he would like to do the other side in a similar fashion. Commissioner Weems asked for clarification on the texture of the existing wall and how it was constructed. Mr. Manuel stated that he believes they were cinder blocks that had been "cemented" together and coated it with a "rougher cement type." Commissioner Serebrov asked the applicant if he had looked at the possibility of making a much smaller wall around the base of the tree using original materials. Mr. Manuel stated "No." Chair Newbern acknowledged his situation and commented on the walls design. Chair Newbern also stated that the new wall does not resemble the historic character of other walls in the district. Newbern also commented that the proposed wall is commonly used but does give off a different appearance. The applicant asked if it would make a difference if he planted ivy to cover the wall. The commission acknowledged his comment. Commissioner Weems asked the applicant if he would consider a new wall similar to one in Exhibit 14. Commissioner Serebrov also added consideration of something similar to Exhibits 11 and 12. The applicant noted again that a wall constructed similar to those in exhibits 11 and 12 would cost more and may hinder the repair process to the home. The applicant told the commission that he felt the wall in exhibit 14 was ugly and hadn't planned that type of wall. Commissioner Weems noted that the tree was going to remain. Chair Newbern asked about the condition of the two walls and if the one that was currently covered was in worse shape than the exposed one. The applicant stated that the covered one was in worse shape because of root and tree damage. Commission Chair Newbern asked if the reason for changing the wall was aesthetics or safety. Mr. Manuel responded that the primary reason for the change was aesthetics and secondly for safety. Mr. Manuel stated that the tree might fall over if the wall collapsed. Chair Newbern said that the tree most likely had a secure footing and would probably not fall down. Commissioner Weems added that the tree wouldn't fall. Chair Newbern stated that this is an interesting case because the new wall is not in character with the district and the old one is not in good shape. A discussion began on possible ways to address the problems with landscaping. Chair Newbern said that it might be possible to use planting to cover the original wall and hold back soil. Chair Newbern said the least damaging way is to clean up the existing work, cover the wall with growth, and allow for future rehabilitation of the wall. Chair Newbern noted that the general consensus of the wall was that the original wall should be preserved and not covered by a new wall. A discussion began regarding how to hold back the dirt adjacent to the drive when the "new" wall is removed. A discussion began on the new walkway and stairs. Mr. Manual explained that the new pathway replaced a damaged brick walkway. The applicant noted that the brick pavers came from Home Depot and were laid on a sandy bed. Chair Newbern noted that a new wall could be constructed out of similar cinder block material adjacent to the driveway to retain the dirt if needed. Commissioner Weems asked how wide the area was between the existing wall and the new pathway. It was agreed upon that the space is about three cinder block widths wide. Additional alternatives were discussed that included a cloth ground cover and Cypress mulch to prevent erosion. City Attorney Debra Weldon asked that staff clarify the amended application. The application is now for new gutters and downspouts, a paver system pathway, and mortar work and tuckpointing. Removed from the application was construction of a retaining wall (at the applicant's request), construction of the deck (because it is not visible from the street), construction of a new roof (because it is considered a repair), and exterior paint (because the Commission does not oversee paint colors). Newbern stated for the record that the application has been amended to request new gutters, a paver pathway, and mortar work / tuckpointing. Commissioner Serebrov recommended approval of the amended application and to adopt staff recommendations 1, 2, and 3, for approval of a rain gutter system, paver pathway, mortar work and repointing. Commissioner Weems seconded, the motion passes 3 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. RESULT APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the rain gutter system if it is constructed using a hang -on, half -round gutter system with no additional fascia or soffit attached. 2. Approval of the paver sidewalk system. 3. Approval of the mortar work with staff review before beginning any re -pointing work to obtain proper guidance.