Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7-2004 Staff ReportOctober 7, 2004 ITEM #1: 417 EAST lOTH STREET MINUTE RECORD STAFF REPORT (prepared by the housing department) APPLICANT: Richard C. Butler, Jr. ADDRESS: 417 East 10"' Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construct two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west of I-3 0, on the south side of Tenth Street, between Rock and Commerce Streets. The subject project's legal description is Part of lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 58. Beginning at the NW corner of Lot 12, run thence South 150 feet to the SW corner of Lot 10; thence East along the South line of Lot 10, 51 feet; run thence North 63.5 feet; run thence West 32.5 feet; run thence North 86.5 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 12; run thence West, 18.5 feet to the point to the beginning. The middle part of Lots 11 and 12, Block 58 Begin at a point 18.5 feet East of the NW corner of Lot 121 thence run South 86.5 feet; thence east 32.5 feet; thence N 50 degrees E, 44 feet; thence North 55 feet; thence West 63.5 feet to the point of the beginning. The purpose and intent of this project is to construct a two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 1. New Construction (New Buildings); a. Of Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: i. Shape ii. Scale (height and width) iii. Roof shape and pitch iv. Orientation to the street v. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays vi. Foundation height vii. Floor -to -ceiling height viii. Porch height and depth ix. Material and material color (if brick —closely matching x. mortar and brick color tones, if frame matching lap dimensions with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding) xi. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves; October 7, 2004 watercourses; corner boards, eave depths, etc. should be similar in size) xii. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks). b. Of primary structures, while blending in with adjacent buildings, should not be too imitative of historic styles so that new buildings can be distinguished (differentiated) from historic buildings. NOTE: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, denails, fish scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. c. Of secondary structures such as garages and other outbuildings should be: i. Smaller in scale than the primary building. ii. Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. iii. Located as traditional for the street, near the alley, not close to or attached to the primary building; and iv. Compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Bob Peckley (sp) and John Jarrard were present to present the application. Richard Butler was not present. John Jarrard spoke for the applicant and stated that they would like to add workshop and guest quarters to blend with the historic buildings. It will have board and batten siding and be a two-story structure. A number of accessory structures in area have board and batten siding. The Sanford maps shows an outbuilding on this site in different location. Carolyn Newbern asked what is the relation of the roofline to the roofline of the existing house. The existing house is one story and this is two story. She asked if we will see the roofline of this structure from street? John Jarrard stated that it is on alley, and roof pitch is same as house. House is about 13 feet tall and start of roofline on new structure is 16 or October 7, 2004 17 feet. Carolyn Newbem asked about the relationship of the roofline of this structure to the house at 1002 Commerce, (which this abuts). The house at 1002 Commerce Street is a more modern building with a lower slope roof. A comment was made by Bob Peckley that Curran Hall on Capitol Avenue is a one-story building with a two story outbuilding in the rear and this relationship would be similar. Dense trees will probably block the view. Wesley Walls asked if the windows were clad wood windows. The answer was yes and they will be six over six, which was taken from the main structure. Wesley Walls asked if column designs are similar to the main structure. The answer was yes. Wesley Walls asked the reason between board and batten versus lap siding. John Jarrard said that historically, outbuildings were typically made of the inexpensive materials such as rough cut board and batten siding. Bolden said that it concerned him and the applicable guideline was that the secondary building should be "simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building". You have done that with the windows and the columns, but the vertical siding and the dormers do not seem to have a corresponding feature on the main building. John Jarrard said that the board and batten is not critical. A question came up about the trees hiding the structure from the street. John Jarrard said that there were a lot of trash trees that are growing along the fence line and they would lose a couple of those. You will lose some trees by putting in the driveway. Carolyn Newbern asked what the function was of the dormer on the north elevation above the porch. She stated that the dormer troubled her. Carolyn Newbern disclosed that when the application was first received, Carolyn Newbem did call the owner of the property at 1002 Commerce. She asked if the property owner knew of the application since the son lived at the address and the property owner did not live there. To this date, the McRae's have not received any information about this application. The abstract list was examined and errors have been found on the list. Ms. McRae has notified staff via email that she was aware of the application. Carolyn Newbem mentioned this to the commission to state that 1) she has had conversations with Ms. McRae, and 2) that a professional abstract company did not find information that two other individuals had been able to find. Carolyn Newbem will recuse herself from the vote. LITTLE 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 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD October 7, 2004 Sister Cities Conference Room City Hall I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. The meeting was convened at 5:01 p.m. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Terrence Bolden Wyatt Weems Marshall Peters (arrived late and left early) Members Absent: None City Attorney: Staff Present: Deborah Weldon Andre Bernard Charles Bloom Ward Hanna II. Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects Legal ad was posted and legal notice was given on all of these items. There was one property that was left off of the abstract list on item #1, but contact has been made with the property owner and they are aware of the public hearing today. III. Public Hearing • Item #1: 417 East 10t' Street • Item #2: 601 South Rock Street • Item #3: 411 East Sixth Street Item #4: 507 East 8`h Street City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA September 9, 2004 Sister Cities Conference Room City Hall I. , Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum II. Public Hearing Agenda Item #1 Applicant: Address: Request:: • Agenda Item #2 Applicant: Address: Request: ■ Agenda Item #3 Applicant: Address: Request: Robert Wood 424 East 6th Street Remove rotted wood on front porch and molding at roofline. Restore porch to historically correct. appearance. Remove box columns from piers and replace with round Doric columns. Change porch railings to historically accurate design. Add fence and gate at front in the future. Richard C. Butler, Jr. 417 East loth Street Construction of 'a two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. (Deferred at request of applicant) Silas E. Valdez . 424 East 61h Street Demolition of storage structure. • Agenda Item #4 (Deferred at request of applicant) Applicant: Stephen McAteer Address: 503 East 91h Street- STAFF REPORT DATE: - September 9, 2004 APPLICANT: Richard C. Butler, Jr. ADDRESS: 417 East 10`h Street, Little Rock, AR 7220.2 COA REQUEST: Construct two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. PROJECT -BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The subject property is located west of I-30, on the south side of Tenth Street, between Rock and Commerce Streets. The subject project's legal description is Part of lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 58. Beginning at the NW corner of Lot 12, run thence South 150 feet to the SW corner of Lot 10; thence East along the South line of Lot 10, 51 feet; run thence North 63.5 feet; run thence West 32.5 feet; run thence North 86.5 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 12; run thence West, 18.5 feet to the point to the beginning. The middle part of Lots 11 and 12, Block 58 Begin at a point 18.5 feet East of the NW corner of Lot 121 thence run South 86.5 feet; thence east 32.5 feet; thence N 50 degrees E, 44 feet; thence North 55 feet; thence West 63.5- feet to the point of the beginning. The purpose and intent of this project is to construct a two story wood framed out building with a garage and workshop below and guest quarters above. There is one criteria in the district's design guidelines for consideration. 1. New Construction (New Buildings); a. Of vrimary buildin s should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern -of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: i. Shape ii. Scale (height and width) iii. Roof shape and pitch iv. Orientation to the street v. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays vi. Foundation height vii. Floor -to -ceiling height viii. Porch height and depth ix. Material and material color (if brick —closely matching mortar and - brick color tones, if frame —matching lap dimensions with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding) x. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves; watercourses;. corner boards, eave depths, etc. should be similar in size) xi. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks). b. Of primary structures + while blending in with adjacent buildings, should not be too imitative of historic styles so that new buildings can be distinguished (differentiated) 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 (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. c. Of secondary structures such as garages and other outbuildings should be: i. Smaller in scale than the primary building.. ii. Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. iii. , Located as traditional for the street, near the alley, not close to or attached to the primary building; and iv. Compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no objections to this project request either in writing or by phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project. October 7, 2004 Andre Bernard noted for the record that Mr. Peters was present. The applicant noted for the record that Beech abstract had given him good service before and that he notified all that was on the list. He did not verify the names on the list to double check Boyd Maher stated that this was a good design, but was essentially an attempt to recreate a historic structure. There is nothing wrong with that but the guidelines state it should follow the general character of primary building. The dormers and vertical siding do not reflect the principal structure. If the commission does want to approve this sort of thing in the future, your revision of the guidelines should reflect that. Wesley Walls made a comment on the dormer issue, that he thought it was to mitigate the overall height of the structure, to keep the massing lower. Marshall Peters asked Boyd Maher if vertical siding was used back in that period of time. Boyd Maher that it was. They drew elements from other outbuildings in the area. Marshall Peters states that it being substantially different from the house, it distinguishes itself as an addition, not an old structure. Wesley Walls made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Marshall Peters seconded. The motion was approved 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal from Carolyn Newbern. Request: Construction of signage for MacArthur Park, the Arkansas Arts Center and MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. Relocation of David O. Dodd memorial marker from ULAR Law School parking lot to site behind arsenal building. IV. New and Old Business A. Schedule next working session for Guideline review V. Adjournment