HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2016-002 Staff Report 04/11/2016723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: April 11, 2016
APPLICANT: Troy Deal
ADDRESS: 901 Cumberland
COA REQUEST: Infill single family house
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 901 Cumberland. The
property's legal description is "The West 93.35' of lot 1
and the North 25' of the West 93.35' of Lot 2 of Block 44,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This is a vacant lot. The Sanborn maps show that in
1897, there was a one story house at 303 Ninth facing
north. The house at 309 was there in its current form. In
1913, the two houses that are there today are shown on
the map with the lot in review vacant.
This application is for construction of an infill single story
single family house. In addition to this COA, there is an
item for a PRD Planned Residential Development that
has been approved at the Planning Commission to
subdivide the original lots 1, 2 and 3, (houses at 309 E
Ninth Street, 909 S Cumberland and the vacant lot) into
three separate lots to accommodate the new structure.
FECAMTOL-AVE a
. c % Z w: ECAM,
j + E8>♦, 9f m
fi Si E YTH ST
EI HSr
6.30
K
E
-� t �. •oM QOF.
-� E16TH ST.
Location of Project
This item also approved the setbacks of the new house. This will not be forwarded to the Board
of Directors until your approval of the COA.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files.
Page 18 of 33
The four houses on the 900 block of Cumberland.
;ed Front i
b
AIR V
i
Contributinq and Non-contributing map
of house for March 14, 2016
rxw mrS%S6•fIX ('lLtlmlE Pt\EL
i �xzs•cu /
Iu — mcaE =soo.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
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
Page 19 of 33
- - -- - - --- - -- --- - _ .. ----------
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.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. — Certificate of appropriateness required.
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.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 23-120. — General Criteria
(0 Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the
existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not
be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
Page 20 of 33
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
...related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
(Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9)
...related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
(Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10)
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt,
the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although
they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic
styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new
building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration,
such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish -scale shingles, etc. These kinds of
details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional
for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary
structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The fagade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
Page 21 of 33
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
Architectural style
General design
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
Siting
Height
Proportion
Rhythm
Roof area
Entrance area
Wall areas
Detailing
Facade
Scale
Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed house is contemporary.
GENERAL DESIGN The house features multiple levels of flat roofs with accent pylons and
chimney masses of standard concrete block masonry. The exterior materials are cedar
horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding.
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
From the materials list included:
Page 22 of 33
behind the fence will have a storefront clear anodized aluminum finish.
Windows will be storefront clear anodized aluminum frames.
Lighting will be can lights above the porch and on the front fagade over front two bedrooms. At
the garage, there will be two wall mounded sconces in aluminum.
Box gutters will be on the house instead of the typical linear gutters. Downspouts will be on the
north, east and south sides of the structure and the downspouts will color match the underlying
material.
There will be parapets on the roof. The roof will be of a PPO Firestone membrane. There will
be aluminum flashing on the top of the parapet.
SITING The front yard (Scott Street) setback will be 15' and the Ninth Street setback will be 13'.
These two setbacks will be somewhat closer than the others on Scott or Ninth Streets. The side
yard and rear yard setbacks will be 5' each.
HEIGHT The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and
roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used.
Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
The existing four houses on Cumberland are all two story houses with pitched roofs with
combinations of gables and dormers facing Scott to give them more perceived height. The
house on Ninth is a one story with pitched roof. There are no flat roof single family contributing
houses in the district. There are, within a block of this application, some outside the area of
influence, two story flat roofed apartments and one and two story flat roofed commercial
buildings. This house will have two or three steps into the house unlike the rest on the block
face which have a raised foundation with 5 or more steps onto the porches.
PROPORTION The proportion of this proposed house is rather low and horizontal unlike the
taller or box like proportion of the four square and Queen Anne houses on the block.
RHYTHM is defined as the harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at
regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or
asymmetrically and their relative positions. This house does not have a much rhythm as others
in the area do when comparing the location of windows and doors.
ROOF AREA The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms
and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be
used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are
important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
There are no contributing single family houses in the district with a flat roof. This one story
single family home's flat roof does not "blend" as the ordinance requires in Sec 23-120(0 nor it
is "similar" as the guidelines recommend on page 55 under New Construction.
ENTRANCE AREA The entrance faces Cumberland Street but does not have the proportion of
the other porches on the blockface as defined as a ratio of porch width to overall fagade width.
WALL AREAS On Cumberland Street, most of the fagade is horizontal wood siding with Hardie
board accents. The Hardie Board will be panels 24" wide that create a frame around the sides
and top of the wall. On the 9th Street side, The Hardie board panels constitute the majority of
Page 23 of 33
vary from 3' by 8' vertical panels to 2' by 4' horizontal panels. The east side will be all
horizontal Hardie panels 2' tall. The south side is mostly Hardie panel with some wood siding.
The south facade will be mostly obscured by a 6' privacy fence.
DETAILING This house, being a contemporary house, has more subtle details than others. The
details will lie in the joining of the Hardie panels and the wood siding, the joining of the window
units and doors, etc.
FACfADE The house features multiple heights of walls in the structure. The exterior materials
are cedar horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding. The windows are rather unadorned
as is typical in contemporary houses.
SCALE This is a one story with flat roof which does not blend with the neighborhood. The
scale of porch is smaller than the rest on block. Overall, this house will read as inconsistent
with the block in terms of height. The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form:
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the
area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and
porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and
depth.)
MASSING The massing of this house in not consistent with the houses on the blockface nor
the rest of the houses on the block. This one-story house is shorter than the adjacent one story
house on Ninth Street and noticeably shorter than the rest of the houses on Cumberland and
the block. The combination of lower height and larger width on the front (57' which is longer
than the original width of a lot) makes the mass of this structure incompatible. On page 55 of
the Guidelines, it states: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic
structures in the area. This includes height and width.
FENCE The fence will be cedar or redwood in a horizontal application.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there two calls of
a neutral nature regarding this application.
Based on the above review of the general design, height, proportion, roof area, entrance area,
scale, and massing, Staff cannot support this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 14 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. He
noted that there were one person in opposition to the project and one neutral. Vice Chair
Jeremiah Russell asked about the setback of the building. He wanted to know if the 15 foot
setback was within 10 percent of the setback of the other homes. Mr. Minyard said he did not
measure them but it appears to be closer than the other houses on Cumberland. The map is
drawn to scale. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the size of the lot width. Mr. Minyard
clarified the proposed lot size and configuration. The lot width along Cumberland will be 75 feet,
larger than the typical lot. Vice Chair Russell asked if this was a corner lot and if the front door
was on Cumberland. Mr. Minyard stated this was correct. Commissioner Toni Johnson
commented about the height in respect to 309 E 91h and of the houses on Cumberland.
Page 24 of 33
roof since it was a house. Mr. Minyard responded that it was not. Vice Chair Russell spoke of
the contributing houses in the area and flat roof of the application. Commissioner Johnson
stated that they were talking about the contributing houses in the area.
Troy Deal, the application, stated that this would be one of the first new homes north of 630. It
was their dream home. The 1960s architecture is the anchor for the design, working off the
Arkansas Arts Center. They submitted a letter from Margaret Kemp in support to of the
application in addition to a packet of photos of the site and general area. They stated that they
wanted a single story house, a modern cottage. He continued that they did not need or desire a
two story house and wanted access to the courtyard area from the main part of the house. He
said that they had met with Staff to talk materials and planning process. They wanted the house
to look different with materials of today.
Mr. Deal continued that they adjusted the setback of the garage to 18' in response to the
Planning Commission concerns for off street parking. They added a covered front porch that is
17 feet long and lined up the house with the houses to the south.
Commissioner Toni Johnson commented that the plan I beautiful but is concerned about the
900 block of Cumberland with the four two story gabled homes and that the proposed house
does not continue the proportions of the existing houses. She continued about the rhythm of
the other structures to the south. Mr. Deal stated that the top of the gable on 309 e 9th is 22'
tall, and the top of the concrete on the proposed house is 21' tall. He stated that it should not
match the historic houses along Cumberland. Commissioner Johnson stated that the form itself
does not blend and suggested they look at the historic streetscape. This structure changes the
rhythm of the street. She does not feel that it is appropriate for the corner.
Commissioner Wilson asked if the foundation could be raised. Mr. Deal stated that it could be
raised but it was designed for elderly living.
Commissioner Rebecca Pekar commented that there were no peaks on the roof. If it blends, it
would preserve the feel of the neighborhood. She feels that it is too jarring and out of place.
Mr. Deal stated that there is a commercial building across the street. Commissioner Pekar felt
that there should be more of what is there now.
Commissioner Wilson stated that Mark Brown and Jill Judy (the owners of the property) have
appeared before the commission before. He said that someday that something would be built
there. He doubted that it would be big houses that match the foursquare. The house at 909
Cumberland (two story blue house) will be single family, and then there is Poe travel with two
houses and then a five plex on the corner of 10th. He stated that he did not have any problem
with the design and talked about the variety of the neighborhood architecture.
Michael Puckett, the applicant, spoke of the changes of sizes in the area. Mr. Deal, also spoke
of the Heiple Wiedower study of infill with its variable height and sizes. Commissioner Wilson
spoke of historically a mixture of sizes and mixed income in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson stated that her comment was not about size of structure but was about
the low and horizontal nature of the house versus the tall and vertical aspect of the existing
houses on Cumberland. She stated that a pitched roof would be needed.
Page 25 of 33
strong statement of continuity and the rhythm of the houses along Cumberland and that this is a
unique street in the continuity. She sees the streetscape as a whole. She stated that corner
lots are important and the jarring effect of the differing rhythm.
Mr. Deal states that it will be another 20 years before new house will be built on this lot.
Vice Chair Russell spoke of the siting of the house and that a front door on 9th street would be
an easier sell. On the courtyard, it is an opportunity to break from the Charles Thompson
houses to the south. He said that it related more to the commercial across the street. The
height of the building does not relate to the pink house. The mass change is too jarring and
changes too many times for this lot. The proportion and masses change on 9th and
Cumberland. He feels that the roof is okay and the house has a nice entrance. Vice Chair
Russell continued that the thinks the design is not successful yet for this site. He stated that
there are lots of examples to make the case to make the house blend more. The height on
Cumberland is more important than the height on 9th. A sloped roof is not a condition for him.
Vice Chair Johnson recommends deferring the item to work on the design.
Mr. Deal said that if a pitched roof is a deal breaker, to please let him know now. He wanted to
get feedback from the Commissioners. Vice Chair Russell said that the design is not successful
yet, but it was not the place for the commission to design the house for them. Commission
Wilson said that he was fine the way it is. Commissioner Pekar suggested to start with the
guidelines, read through them, and then modify the design from there. Commissioner Carman
stated she could not give concrete instructions, but suggested that they check the guidelines.
She said to consider the height of the roof and that it is more about the rhythm along the
rooflines.
Mr. Puckett said that they could change the massing of the structure. He does not want to
change to the overall design, but could tweak it. Commissioner Carman stated that she wanted
to see an elevation of both street views with the houses drawn to scale.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the setback that was close and that the foundation was
lower on their structure. She commented on the streetscape being compose of squares and
triangles and the rhythm of the streetscape, the proportion of the massing, and the proposed
house being low and flat and square when everything else was not. He also mentioned the
rhythm of the windows and doors.
Commissioner Carman commented on the sequential view of the street with the rhythm of the
windows and visual line of the windows.
Commission Wilson stated that the windows are plain like the windows in the Thompson
houses. Commission Johnson sated that she was looking at the form, mass and the
streetscape, not at window mullions.
Chair BJ Bowen asked if they wanted to defer their application. The applicant said yes.
Jill Judy, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the district,
commented on the peach colored house and that there were commercial structures historically
on 9th Street. This property should not be held to a strict residential guidelines review. She
Page 26 of 33
Street traffic is one way south. She stated that it was not the most residential of vacant lots. She
thinks that the house would be an asset to the neighborhood. She wishes that there was a way
to get to yes on this project.
Mark Brown, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the
district, commented on the small size of the subject lot. He also stated that the Thompson
houses on the block are too big for today's market. He spoke of the parapet, projections of the
house, height, etc. He stated that the Commission decides which portions of the guidelines are
important and which are not. He said that maybe a coffee shop would be better, but a vacant lot
is an eyesore. He thinks the design is good, but not exactly the same as the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wilson stated that 100% of the block face was in support of the house.
There was no one that spoke in opposition to the house.
Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that the QQA was neutral on this application. They are
supportive of contemporary architecture. The four houses on Cumberland are similar in
massing and style. The pitched roof is appropriate, but the flat roof is not wholly inappropriate.
They suggested raising the roof or the foundation, changing the setback of the rooms on the
front of the house and enlarging the windows on the 9th street side. With changes to the house,
it could be an asset to the neighborhood.
There was a motion to defer the application to the next April 11, 2016 by Vice Chair Russell to
modify the design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carman and the motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. The applicant was informed that the revisions would
need to be in Staff's inbox at 8:00 am on March 28th.
STAFF UPDATE: March 14 2016
Staff met with the applicant on March 16th to discuss any changes to the drawings before the
next HDC meeting. The applicant discussed some preliminary changes and submitted final
changes to the Staff before the March 28 deadline.
Several changes have been made to the submission since the last review. The changes will be
reviewed in the following paragraphs. See letter from applicant dated 3/25/16 on page 11 of this
report.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed house is unchanged.
GENERAL DESIGN The house now features only two levels of flat roofs instead of three.
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
The material list has not changed. See page 6 of this report.
SITING Same as before. See page 6 of this report.
Page 27 of 33
Revised Perspective for the April 11. 2016
HEIGHT The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and
roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used.
Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
The existing four houses on Cumberland are all two story houses with pitched roofs with
combinations of gables and dormers facing Scott to give them more perceived height. The
house on Ninth is a one story with pitched roof. There are no flat roof single family contributing
houses in the district. There are, within a block of this application, some outside the area of
influence, two story flat roofed apartments and one and two story flat roofed commercial
buildings. This house will have two or three steps into the house unlike the rest on the block
face which have a raised foundation with 5 or more steps onto the porches.
The height of the building has been changed. The two rooms and the entry hall that face
Cumberland Street have been raised 3 feet to put the porch near the same level as the porches
to the south on the historic houses. The porch ceiling height has also been modified to reflect
the height of the porches on the houses to the south. The new drawings, the elevations and the
perspective, have been scaled to show the relationship of the proposed structure to the existing
ones.
PROPORTION While the western part of the house has been raised three feet to more closely
match the height of the existing porches, which raised the overall height of the structure, the
proportion of this proposed house is still overall horizontal unlike the taller or box like proportion
of the four square and Queen Anne houses on the block. The proposed house is wider than
the original platted lots on the street. See photo of the existing houses along Cumberland on
page 2 of this report.
Page 28 of 33
regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or
asymmetrically and their relative positions. Windows were added on the Cumberland Street
side and an additional door with sidelight was added on the 91h Street facade.
ROOF AREA The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms
and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be
used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are
important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
There are no contributing single family houses in the district with a flat roof. This one story
single family home's flat roof does not "blend" as the ordinance requires in Sec 23-120(0 nor it
is "similar" as the guidelines recommend on page 55 under New Construction.
The differing levels of the roof in addition to the layout of the flat roofs are complex in a different
way than the other roofs on the block. The combination of the rectangular solids does not blend
with the other structures.
ENTRANCE AREA The porch on Cumberland Street was doubled in length to extend almost
halfway across the house. The porch will be on the southern portion of the house to the right of
the concrete block pylon. The porch will be raised to be similar to the porch height of the
houses to the south. See the elevation on page 15 of this report. Columns have been added to
the front porch to relate to the other front porches in the district. The division of the mullions at
the sidelight to the front door has been changed to increase the number of panes in an effort to
blend more with the other structures.
WALL AREAS Changes have been made to the facade in addition to the added height on the
western portion of the building. Additional windows have been added to the west (front) facade
and an additional door with sidelight has been added on the 9ch Street facade. Windows have
been changed from a small pane on the bottom to a small pane on the top, more in line with the
typical location of a transom window. The siding on the 9`h Street side has been changed to
reflect the porch on the historic home on 91h Street.
DETAILING This house, being a contemporary house, has more subtle details than others. The
details will lie in the joining of the Hardie panels and the wood siding, the joining of the window
units and doors, etc.
FACADE See comments in Wall Areas above.
SCALE This is a one story with flat roof which does not blend with the neighborhood. Overall,
this house will read as inconsistent with the block in terms of height and scale. The Guidelines
state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch,
which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of
entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor -to -ceiling, porch height and depth.)
MASSING The massing of this house in not consistent with the houses on the blockface nor
the rest of the houses on the block. This one-story noticeably shorter than the rest of the
houses on Cumberland and the block. The combination of lower height and larger width on the
front (57' which is longer than the original width of a lot) makes the mass of this structure
Page 29 of 33
mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.
FENCE No change from before.
In summary, the following changes have been made to the application.
The overall height of the building has been increased on the Cumberland Street side,
Length of front porch doubled,
Columns have been added to front porch,
Windows and doors have been added,
Window pane arrangement has been changed,
Porch ceiling height more closely aligns with adjacent structures,
Roof will only have two different heights,
Side door cover / extended overhang created to match height and site lines of
neighboring front porch.
Staff does not believe that with the changes made to the application that the structure blends
with the area of influence or the existing neighborhood. Sec 23-120 of the ordinance states that
"Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing
neighborhood and area of influence." The Guidelines state on page 55 "New construction of
primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of
surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent
buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished
from historic buildings. " This building does not blend in architectural style, proportion, roof
areas, scale and massing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 11 2016
Mr. Minyard made a brief staff presentation and discussed the changes that were made. The
Staff Update portion of the Staff Report will show those changes. A new cover letter is also
included in the report.
Troy Deal, the applicant, made comments on the application. He stated that he hoped that the
changes that were made we in keeping with what they heard at the last meeting. He added that
the changes to the 9th Street side simulate columns as well. Michael Puckett stated that they
tried to mimic the doors and windows on the 91h Street side from the Cumberland Street side.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell expressed that he was glad that the applicants had taken the
option to defer and modify their drawings based on comments. He said that they had done a
wonderful job on the design and disagrees with Staff recommendation. He continued that the
mass and scale of the new design is more in keeping with the rest of the district. Given that it is
a corner lot, the change to have doors on both sides is an improvement. He is in favor of
approving the design.
Commissioner Rebecca Pekar stated that she is still concerned that this structure does not
blend as well with the other structures. She noted that nothing has been said about the exterior
materials that she feels is incompatible with the area. Flat surfaces, profiles of the siding, etc.,
are her concerns. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked what the fagade surfaces are. Mr. Deal
Page 30 of 33
is either wood siding or a manufactured product that looks like wood laid horizontally and
speaks to the horizontal siding of older houses. The structures that are like chimneys will be
made of concrete block. Windows will be aluminum. Commissioner Page Wilson stated that
James Hardie materials are listed in the guidelines as an appropriate material. There was a
discussion between Commissioners Pekar and Wilson on the guidelines and what they said on
the use of Hardie planks versus Hardie panels.
Commissioner Johnson commented on a question from last month's hearing. The question was
if a modern building could be built in the district. Her response was that it could if it met the
guidelines. In her opinion, this project has been successful in pulling those aspects forward with
the mass and scale of the structure. The columns on the porch mimic the others on the block.
The rhythm of the doors and windows are appropriate. Contemporary buildings can be
successful if the district if done in a sympathetic way.
Commissioner Wilson stated he was in support of the application and considered the building a
record of our time. He stated that HardieBoard was an approved material for infill.
Commissioner Pekar stated that HardiePlank was recommended because it mimicked the
horizontal lap siding. not hardi board in the large sheets. Commissioner Russell said that the
hardi board were to mimic stucco finish on houses. Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to read
the section to the Commission.
Mr. Minyard read from the Guidelines in the New Construction of Primary and Secondary
buildings under #4 as written on page 4 of the Staff report: "Building materials that are similar to
those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should
be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their
appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new
building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be
painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. "
Commissioner Dick Kelley stated that this is a corner lot and have done an excellent job to fit
the structure in. With the adjacent buildings being one story and two story, there is no way to
match both.
Robert Longo, a downtown resident, spoke in support of the application.
Brian Duncan, owner of the print shop across street, hoped that the Commission would vote in
support of the application. He is tired of the undesirable element and would hope it would not
remain a vacant lot.
Charles Penix, who works for Cromwell Architects, spoke in favor the application. He spoke of
the importance for life and vitality in the neighborhood.
Mark Brown, owner of four buildings on the block, spoke in favor of the application.
There was nobody to speak in opposition to the application.
Commissioner Russell made a motion to approve the application as submitted for today's
meeting. Commissioner Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no
(Pekar) and one absent (Carman). Commissioner Pekar said the she did not feel that it blended
with the neighborhood.
Page 31 of 33