Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report and RecommendationsUL City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY: V. Anne Guthrie DATE: 27 October 2000 APPLICANT: Glenn Kubeczka ADDRESSES: 920 Rock COA REQUEST: Construct a new fence along the two sides and rear PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The property is located north of I-630, on the west side of the street. It is a two -storied brick apartment building constructed in the early 1960s. It is sited with the apartment entries on the north facade, along an open walkway and the balconies open on the rear of the apartment on the south facades. The applicant was approved for exterior repairs in May. The surrounding land uses are: two duplexes and two single-family homes to the north; apartments and a business to the west; single-family homes to the south; apartments to the southeast and a vacant lot to the east. The project entails the construction of a new perimeter fence to take the place of one that was demolished this summer. Administrative approval was obtained to remove the 62" horizontal fence on condition that a new fence be constructed that met LRHDC approval. A drawing of a trellis fence (three feet in height) was presented but denied. The proposed fence is: three feet in height; wooden pickets spaced 3" apart (as illustrated in the district's Design Guidelines); painted white or beige; approximately 117' on the north and south sides and 80' in the rear. While the applicant cites the design guidelines for fence construction, it is for front yard fences. It is recommended that the applicant utilize the guideline for fence construction in rear and side yards, which is 12D (p.31) "Of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards; generally no taller than six feet; of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox); stained or painted; and of a design compatible with the structure." NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: There was one objection to the applicant's request; the objection related to the proposed low height for sides and wanting it increased. An earlier letter of support is enclosed along with the previously mentioned. Appropriate notification was given to property owners within 150' as required for new fence construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staff recommendation that the request for a new perimeter fence along the north, south and west sides be approved conditionally: ♦ the height of the rear and side yard fence should be increased to no more than six feet ♦ should fence construction be altered other than what was presented and approved, staff will be notified and appropriate measures taken 5 P'LITTLE. ROCK r:r.�T ' SIT HISTORIC r,r 1"DISTRICT i�f I /fl�ir r. !11'r APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: �0 oC? 1. Date of Public Hearing: Z day ❑f C)�. 2000 at P.M. 2. Address of Property: �LJ ��C� S ���CC k0ek- _ 72_2, L 3. Legal Description of Property: �. /31de ,- dgl�(04W C'rTy C/Z-:, 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): Yr S .< A <Zf t--f<--s on/v r L� 720 74v sor—S9,F - Ls 5. Owner's Agent: 6. Project Description (additional pages may be added)'VSTL Atr�rsCrlCj' 3 Gil nw,cl v S 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: 8. Category of Work: 1 9. Notification Requirements- 10. Signature of Owner or Agent: �[ L� 1 - II III IV (Staff use) perties within 150 feet) No Little Rock Historic District Commission Action (to be completed by staff): — Denied — Deferred — Approved _ Approved with Conditions Staff Signature: NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. Little Rock Historic District Commission + Department of Housing and Community Development 500 W. Markham Street, #120W + Little Rock, AR 72201 + Phone: 501-244-5420 + Fax: 501-399-3461 p,� ter -pry �,� �y` FkOP05L95 3' PICVc--r Fev� -Dill e c Ker IFlif egck 9 T� '� Duptey, AvlotfIr m 4@ I L I's"14 Tz�w, d o c� PjWoerg TKke-c Fcv-To PICL't-r Fervor (o2 FoLP, R�V7- iF1VLtC"1t=-8 ) r r PA- i rJ TO) , WHrrtF A--r, (--,JvJ LLC5 f. N00-�- Stj�>t��7 olj PazPb-V-Ty Laa Ft,-m J-k�o z A V 1-11? T OA Re-(6=- 0%L'OM6 to A-LLL-Y It 7 57tyc,-(* 511>k;'#,Kj PICIDJOC-M Y Z I Fte&v% F-�v7 Or v AP94% !V- RFF,' DeSI.64J F&-V(EW Rey< NtSrcr?rC f 7- "OU L 1-3 k 2- CL -D q!'W U367 1�Sp,+CEr Inker-c-q- C, " -rh ic T 3,0.t 4 4301VE F I NAN C IAL AG E N CYsm GLENN A. KUBECZKA Senior Planning Specialist T r A"D M-76Ef,3o,POv.6 1��2oG S L5—o o Wv! ti1f KKff�1 �= ( 2a r.,/ 74( VOA >b��a,21IV4 11vS*4c- 14- A�1s'lve (el r rh+/ Ai°Pu� PIrPR/ re4r,,- ®.�= *I-PAI/ ; W7rf 517� Dd*Wr,,�S 2 • ���� $i�� t �Y�47'c�'rrSYS�SGc-x5 .C6 dFffrQr�r,•.Q iGi9sL� �a Estate Planning • Annuities - Medicaid Planning 7907 SAYLES ROAD ■ )ACKSONVILLE, AR 72076 • 501-988-5542 Little Rock Historic District Commission City Hall, 500 Vilest Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 COPY October 2000 Regarding: Rock Terrace fence demolition/application - Public Hearing, Sp.m. Nov. 2, 2000 Dear Commissioners: We applaud our neighbor, Glen Kubeczka, for cleaning up and renovating Rock Terrace ( 920 Rock Street). It was previously an eyesore and a detriment to our neighborhood. We are delighted with his efforts and the benefits to the entire area. However, we respectfully request that the on inal fence, which was removed from the north property line of Rock Terrace, between the property located at 914 Rock Street, be reconstructed in a similar fashion as the original/demolished fence for the following reasons: 1. The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable privacy and a much needed buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit apartment building (Rock Terrace) next door. 2. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time the apartments were constructed. At the time of construction, there were no building setback requirements, the opaque 6' high fence served and was re- quired for the buffer. The original fence was appropriate to the site, appropriate in scale, appropriate for a modern building. It served the neighborhood - providing protection visually, as well as providing a noise buffer. 3. The entrances to all 5 Rock Terrace apartments are located on this north side of the property - facing our side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood boards painted white. There is an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was the only buffer to all the noise and activity generated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the fence now gone, all 5 front doors open directly within a few feet of our property. All 5 entrances and exits are facing us (not facing the street or the alley). 4. The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. A ith entrances so close to the property line, within a few feet, a directive towards the street or towards the parking area is needed. 5. We have heard the argument that an opaque privacy fence would allow a place for criminals to lurk. We simply do not buy this rationale. The current tenants do not seem to be a threat, or to be threatened 6. Our request is that the privacy fence be replaced along Rock Terrace's north property line. We do not see a necessity for a buffer at the rear or along the south property line of Rock terrace. This fence/or lack thereof, singularly impacts our cottage because of Rock Terrace's location of all entrances and exits. The fence located on the north property line is the only issue here. 7. It is our opinion that a 4 foot "Victorian", "Gothic" or "picket" fence is not appropriate for the scale of Rock Terrace. The 5 unit, 2 story, brick, flat roofed, modern structure spans practically from property line to property line. A small Victorian fence is not in keeping with the mass and bulk of this building. S. In addition, ggiven Rock Terrace's modern vintage, style and design for a modern building or for a suitable fence is obviousiy not addressed in the Historic District Guidelines for a predominantly turn of the century neighborhood. The original fence design worked quite well -form followed function, it was a buffer. 9. And lastly, a matter of procedure, the fence was an established structure, having been there since the inception of the Little Rock Historic District in 1976. It should never have been demolished without a formal public hearingg: including application, full review, and proper notification - legal notice to property owners in the area of influence anlegal ad published in the newspaper. While we are sincerely appreciative of and indebted to W. Kubeczka for improving our neighborhood, we ask you, the Commission, to insure that our property not be negatively impacted in the process. Again, we enthusiastically support improvements to this property, save this small fence issue. We do hope you will be sensitive to our concerns and require this one section of fencing be replaced in like fashion to its original. Respectfully, Randy Mourning Mally_�atterfei 914 Rock Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 telephone 225-3355 September 2000 Little Rock Historic District Commission City Hall 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Regarding: Rock Terrace fence Dear Commission Members: We respectfully request that the original fence, that was removed between Rock Terrace and property located at 914 Rock Street, be reconstructed as soon as possible. The original fence, although in a deteriorating condition, offered considerable privacy and a much needed buffer between 914 Rock Street and the 5 unit apartment building (Rock Terrace) next door. The entrances to all 5 Rock Terrace apartments are located on this north side of the property - facing our side yard. The fence was approximately 6 feet in height and opaque, made of horizontal wood boards painted white. There is an inadequate side yard setback at Rock Terrace, so the fence was the only buffer to all the noise and activity generated by a 5 unit apartment building. With the fence now gone, all 5 front doors open directly within a few feet of our property, all 5 entrances and exits facing us (not facing the street or the alley). The fence is also necessary to direct traffic out and away from our property. With entrances so close to the property line, a directive towards the street or towards the parking area is needed. We feel as though a fence similar to the original in opacity and height is necessary to protect the integrity of the surrounding properties. We understand that the fence was a requirement at the time the apartments were constructed. At the time of construction, there were no building setback re- quirements, the opaque 6' high fence served and was required for the buffer. The original fence was appropriate to the site and to the neighborhood, provided protection visually, as well as a noise buffer........ and, very importantly, had been there since the inception of the Little Rock Historic District Ordinance in 1976. I would hope, in order to protect the surrounding properties from the impact of this multi- unit structure, that a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until a 6' high, opaque fence is replaced. Sincerely, Randy Mourning & Molly Satterfield 914 Rock Street Little Rock, Arkansas RICHARD C. BUTLER, JR. 417 EAST 10TH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 624 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 501 375-4302 30 September 2000 Little Rock Historic District Commission 500 West Markham # 120W Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: 920 South Rock, Little Rock, within the MacArthur Park Historic District Greetings: This letter is in support of Glenn A. Kubeczka's application for a certificate of appropriateness to place a fence on his property line as long as it is not incompatible with the MacArthur Park Historic District Design Guidelines Handbook. Fortunately for our neighborhood, he has greatly improved a five -unit structure, eliminating a perceived nuisance by cleaning up the property, painting, adding shutters and iron ornamentation to a non-contributing structure and removing an unattractive and rotting high fence that created hiding places and concealed suspicious activity for several years. For creating this "old world" appearance he deserves commendation. I have resided in this block since 1965 and have owned my home at 417 East 1 oth Street since 1971. Since then I have acquired ownership in and restored or improved the other three 19' century residential structures in the same block. After a visual inspection of 920 Rock Terrace, I could feel improvement --open sight lines creating the impression of more light and security --after removal of the old fence. For esthetic reasons, I have removed all fences from the front parts of my properties as I acquired them and only have high fences behind the residential structures. October 1, 2000 Little Rock Historic District Commission City Hall 500 W. Markam St. Little Rock, Ar. 72201 Re: Fence Problems at 920 Rock St. Dear Commission Members: My daughter and I are owners of apartments at 919 and 923 Cumberland and 304, 306 and 308 E. 10th. We are so pleased and appreciative that Mr. Glenn Kubeczka has renovated the property at 920 Rock St. This property had been such a detriment to this area and created many problems for property owners. Our tenants have ex- perienced a number of crimes, and we have spent a considerable amount on repairs and security. The Little Rock Police Chief does not recommend that a six foot privacy fence (such as requested by the adjacent properly owners) to be installed, as this type of fence allows for concealment of criminal activity. As landlords, safety of our tenants is a major concern, as tenants will move if an area is unsafe. If the Quapaw Assn, McArthur Dist. and L.R.H.D.C. desire to keep this a viable, safe area for people to live, then safety for people should be a top priority, not the height of a fence! Property owners should assist the police as much as possible to keep the area safe. Mr. Kubeczka's application meets your own requirement for a wood picket fence. Also, a three or four foot fence serves as well as a six foot fence to direct traffic out and'from plaintiff's property. Sidewalks also serve this purpose! One other thing, why should Mr. Kubeczka be required to install a six foot fence at the rear of the property? I don't recall other properties that abut this alley that have six foot fences in the rear! We urge you to support Mr. Kubeczka's application for a three or four foot wood picket fence. We believe that this much improved multi -unit apartment will be an asset to the neighborhood now. All adjacent and nearby property wwners should be thankful and considerate, as it helps the area and all of us. It is impossible for us to attend the hearing, but hopefully the board and the property owners in attendance will give Mr. Kubeczka a standing ovation and grate- ful thanks for renovating this former crime -infested, run-down property and for- get the pettiness! Sincerely, Mrs. Marian Butler 1104 Hester Jonesboro, Ar. 72401 ok City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 4 MAY 2000 MINUTES LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Jean Ann Phillips Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Wyatt Weems Anthony Black Howard H. Gordon Mark Zoeller The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken; as there was a quorum, the minutes were approved unanimously. The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was: Applicant: Glenn Kubeczka Address: 920 Rock Street Request: Apartment rehabilitation (new windows, shutters, ironwork and fence) The new owner of the property presented the request to repair the apartments by making the following changes: complete rehab of the interior, new roof, new exterior vinyl shutters, exterior painting and new ironwork (railings and fence). The ironwork will be attached to the front facade with horizontal decorative work along the top, middle and bottom; the vertical ironwork will cover the existing brick columns, which extend slightly from the surface. It will have a "New Orleans styled" appearance with the brick and ironwork. The fencing will along the sidewalk as a future improvement for the apartments. The design and style of the ironwork has not been decided but several possible designs were exhibited. Zoeller stated that he needed a better idea of the ironwork design, which is the primary feature improvement of the exterior facade. Details for the new exterior vinyl shutters for the windows were not available. Discussion focused on the need for additional information regarding the ironwork and shutters, and it was decided that shop drawings of both items must be presented for staff review. There was a motion that the COA request be approved contingent on final approval of shop drawings for the ironwork, decorative railing, fence and shutters. It was approved unanimously.