Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 Staff Report~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 '? !" DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 COMMISSION It LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Susan Bell (in at 5:25) Marshall Peters Members Absent: City Attorney: Staff Present: Citizens Present: None Debra Weldon Brian Minyard Boyd Maher, AHPP Missy McSwain, AHPP Terry Burruss Byl Harriel Page Wilson Randy Ripley II. Approval of Minutes May 14, 2007 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters to approve the minutes as amended and was seconded by Commissioner Kay Tatum. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness wesr elevation or 11 L C 11 rn street y .rr ` MMEN& Existing south elevation of 712 E 11 th Street it `-xisting south (side) elevation of 1u11 McMatn r- r. s Existing east (alley) elevation of 1011 McMath 3 set back 22 feet from the west property line, the proposed nine foot tall fence and rolling wood gate would be approximately five feet off of the property line. Environment: After the construction of the 1-30 Freeway through this part of town, the neighborhood changed from single family houses with public uses (church, school and hospital) to the combination of commercial, multi family and single family uses it is today. The area has lost five single-family houses since the 1988 survey including the City Hospital that was located in an English Revival style house. Later construction includes the Waffle House -- 1960's, 2 apartment buildings on 10th -- 1960's, and the Pizza Hut in the 1970's. The addition to the applicant's structure was made in the mid 1970's. The three remaining single family homes in the area are: 923 McMath — a 1910's residence with alterations; 1007 McMath, a 1890's Eastlake residence; and 1011 McMath — a 1900's residence with alterations. These three are fairly close to each other, close enough to get a sense of what the neighborhood used to be and establish the rhythm of the street which would have been similar to other sections of the district. Footprint: The footprint of the new warehouse addition is not totally foreign to the neighborhood. This are of MacArthur Park historic district does have larger footprint buildings, namely the School of Law, a 1910's structure, and the new dorm building across the alley from this structure. The church itself (the applicant's building) is the third largest building in the area. The dorm building is approximately 13,000 square feet footprint and the proposed footprint of the property would be slightly smaller. Although, with the nine foot tall wood privacy fence / rolling gate and the smaller setbacks, the footprint could be perceived as even larger. Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat. There are other flat roofs in the immediate vicinity: The new dorm building to the east, the existing church building, and the law school building. These buildings are taller and larger footprint than the proposed structure. These flat roofs are also farther away from single-family pitched roof houses than the proposed addition. Envelope: The building mass would be perceived much larger than the current structures. While the original church is two stories with a raised basement, the addition is within four feet of the top of the cornice on the original church. The pitched roof on the 1970's addition is the same height as the original church, but appears shorter because of the gable end. This addition at 30 feet wide and just over 30 feet tall will appear to loom over the neighboring house at 1007. Skin: The proposed addition is made of EIFS (drvyit). This material has not been used in the area. The bottom band of the building on the east, north and west sides will be of split face block in a band that corresponds with the watercourse banding on the original church. The block will be medium brown color with a gray -beige drvyit. Most commercial and multi -family buildings in the area are of brick while the single-family 5 7. Floor to ceiling height: The floor to ceiling height is similar to the original church. However, with no distinction between upper and lower floors on the exterior of the building, it appears to be a one-story building. 8. Porch height and depth: There is not a porch on this building. The Loading dock is 4 feet off the ground, but is inside the parking area and does not relate to the street. 9. Material and material color (if brick —closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if frames —matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The EIFS on the warehouse addition is a new material for the neighborhood. The existing buildings are brick and stucco; the house at 1007 is wood. 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The texture of the warehouse addition has one thing in common with the original church. The "window relief' details are the width of one of the original windows, but about one and one half times the height, from the bottom of the first floor window to the top of the second floor window. 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): While the footprint of the warehouse addition could be viewed as a mirror image of the 1970's sanctuary addition, the new warehouse addition dwarfs the house at 1007 McMath in height and bulk. Demolition: The Guidelines state: "Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the building is compatible with the district's architectural character in regards to style, period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a "contributing" historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status." The applicant has not given any information in the application for justification for removing this house other than the fact that they wish to enlarge their facilities. 7 family and multi story. He continued that the streetscape had changed with the addition of the commercial structures. Mr. Burruss said that maybe the house could be relocated to another location. Also, that the front of the building could be pulled back to the line of the house next door and possibly save the tree. He proposed the split face block for the base of the building because he did not think that a third color of brick on the building would be appropriate. He could not get a brick color to match the original church. He wanted the addition to be muted. They tried to match the cornice of the new addition with the cornice of the old building. Chair Newbern asked if there were any citizens to speak on the application. Page Wilson stated that he owned three lots abutting to the north of this application. He expressed that the zoning of the land was UU Urban Use zoning. He continued that UU zoning is about density and mixed use. He stated that the area is not so much of a neighborhood anymore. While it is mixed use, it is not designed as such. He supports the application, density, and diversity in the area. Mr. Minyard stated that the application is on the Planning Commission Agenda for a Conditional Use Permit on June 7th. He sated that the property is zoned UU and that a industrial use requires a CUP. The expansion of the applicant's "grandfathered" business triggered the CUP hearing. Chair Newbern commented that the three portions of the application make it more difficult. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked that Staff separate all the items next time on separate applications in the future. Chair Newbern asked if the commission would talk about the portions of the application separately. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked a question about the location of the structure and which elevation went where. There was a discussion and the question was answered. Mr. Burruss commented that the addition was seven feet off the side property line and that landscaping would be installed to break up the mass of the building on its north side. Commissioner Susan Bell asked if the language of the application would be amended. Staff answered that the application could be amended and the vote would be based on that amendment. Mr. Walls commented on displacing the structure and what the net benefit to the neighborhood would be. The new addition relates to the church. It is a warehouse with no windows. He continued that the lack of windows bothered him. Natural light can save on electricity. He continued that the relation to 1007 is a concern, but the windows would improve that application. 0 Mr. Walls commented on the original porch restoration. Mr. Burruss stated that they would follow the original blueprints on the restoration. Chair Newbern asked if this was going to be the primary entrance to the building. The answer was yes. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lights and signage. Mr. Harriell stated that there would be security lights that will light the interior parking and loading areas at night. Mr. Burruss added that there would be one light on the door that faces the alleyway. Chair Newbern asked if the columns on the porch restoration would be wood. Yes was the answer. Mr. Peters commented on a typo on page 19 of the report. In the Proposal Section, second paragraph, the number should be 1011 instead of 1101. Mr. Peters continued to summarize the changes that would need to be made to the application: moving the west fagade back, house to be moved instead of demolishing, adding windows, changing EIFS to stucco, maintaining the hedgerow on the north side, and the fence height to be six feet.. Chair Newbern added landscaping to the list. Mr. Walls said that he could understand the desire for the nine -foot fence, but the scale has an impact on the pedestrians. He continued that the added windows are more important on the east and west side, the west being more important. The building needs quality windows, clad windows, to mimic the style of the older windows. Maybe leaving a recess between the upper and lower windows would be good. Scale is appropriate, it is lower than the church, and it feels comfortable. Chair Newbern commented other procedural issues: either approve, approve as amended, defer or deny. A discussion was held on amending the application in the meeting with several items being amended with Staff approving the changes at later date when that applicant brings in the paperwork. Mr. Minyard stated that he did not have a problem on small changes to an application, but these changes were more than that. He did not feel comfortable with the scope of the changes and would prefer that the applicant defer to the next meeting and resubmit to include all of the proposed changes. Ms. Bell asked about if the application was denied verses deferred. The answer was that the application would have to re -notify and reapply if denied whereas the deferral would not require that. A discussion was held as to whether the house was structurally sound to move or not. Mr. Harriel stated that he would give the house to whoever wanted to move it. Mr. Wilson said that it might be financially unfeasible to move it. It takes a lot of time and money to do it. The commission then formalized a list of items to be considered in the deferral and resubmittal of the drawings. 1. Change demolition of the structure to a good faith effort to relocate the structure. 11 feet tall, the dumpster could show over the fence. Options are 1) let the top of the dumpster show, 2) add plantings similar to the plantings on the north property line to screen the dumpster, of 3) leave part of the fence at nine feet tall. 6. Hedge row — the hedge row will be retained as possible. 7. Parking area — The parking area will be paved. The guidelines state that concrete or gravel is appropriate while asphalt, aggregate or brick is not. 8. The red brick on the church addition will not be painted at this time. 9. The existing night light will remain. No new exterior lighting will be added at this time. 10.The location of the dumpster is noted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Commission for the overall appearance and design of the structure, Staff does not support the demolition of the residential unit and does not support the expansion of the industrial use in this area. COMMISSION ACTION: June 11, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff Update and the revised recommendations. Mr. Minyard asked questions of the applicant about the dumpster and the paving. Terry Burruss, the architect for the project, stated that dumpster was 42" tall, so that a six foot fence would screen it properly. The next size up on the dumpster is 54 inches tall, which would also be screened by the six foot fence. The paving for the parking lot will be concrete. Mr. Minyard restated the Staff recommendation of denial. Commissioner Peters asked if the color rendering was available to view this evening. Mr. Burruss continued that they preferred to match the existing color of the building's stucco when applying the new stucco. He also said that they would prefer split face block on the bottom of the new building instead of brick. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked about any difference in the east and north side window reliefs. Mr. Burruss said that he added windowsills on the second floor. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if the cornice was stucco or EIFS. There was a discussion of the crispness of the details and if it would not be noticeable at that height if it were a different material. The consensus was to make the cornice EIFS with a fine grit sand finish the same color as the stucco. Commissioner Walls asked about the clad wood windows. Mr. Burruss said that they are operable and that they were single hung windows. Commissioner Walls recommended simulated divided lights on the windows. Commissioner Walls then asked if they had block on the bottom of the new building. Mr. Burruss said yes they had asked for split face block on the base of the new building. 13 A discussion about postponing the demolition for sixty days from today's date, the moving of the structure before that date and the ramifications for the applicant was held. The discussion included sixty days or ninety days from approval. Ms. Weldon stated that with the ordinance, that any application deferred ninety days becomes approved. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve as submitted with clarifications: a good faith effort to relocate house, windows with simulated divided lites, EIFS on parapet (cornice) to maximize depth profile, six foot fencing, and concrete paving in parking area. Commissioner Peters seconded the motion. Commissioner Peters asked that the applicant provide to Staff proof of their good faith effort after ninety days of the hearing. Staff clarified that at the last meeting it was decided that at this meeting, it would be determined if a good faith effort had been met. Staff contended that a good faith effort had been met. Commissioner Peters asked for a sixty day moratorium from today's meeting to move the house before it was demolished. Staff proposed that the applicant could not get a demolition permit until he pulled his building permit, which would hold off the demolition of the maximum amount of time. The motion was amended to state that demolition cannot happen until sixty days from today's date but could be moved on an earlier date. (Staff comment: Sixty days is August 10, 2007.) The amendment to the motion was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. The vote to approve the application as amended with conditions was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. Chair Newbern made a statement for the record that she understood the recommendation of denial from Staff. She did say that they made design changes and keeping the business in the area was important. Commissioner Tatum stated that neighbor support was also important. 15