Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2007-019 Staff ReportDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT aEi j LITTLE ROCK r HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street ' 1; DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 �,��� t COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 If fv STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One DATE: March 12, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core ADDRESS: 101611018 Rock Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1016/1018 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 8 Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 1018 Rock Street is a ca. 1890's residence and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Local si nificance Local historical si nificance 9 9 means that the buildings are associated with people Location of Project of social prominence. 1988 survey states that it is a "Vernacular Cottage". This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the south side. A six feet wood dog-ear top fence is requested. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: None of record. 101611018 Rock Street PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 6' tall wood fence to match the existing fence on the property on the east, north and west sides of the property. The fence will be placed on the southern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the two houses at 1016 and 1018 Rock Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. 101611018 Rock Street 1 1016 Rock Street . _ 50'of 6'fenm 020 17� 316E 111h street 50' - WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE - APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT Sketch for both applications AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. The fence would meet with the gate that is at the front fagade of the house. The gate section spanned between the two buildings (1016 and 1020 Rock Street). To make the six-foot section start at the halfway point of the building would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. 2 COMMISSION ACTION: _ March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. When the building at 1020 Rock Street will be demolished, there will be gaps in the fence. 1016/1018 Rock Street are rental properties for the Cores and the request is to provide fencing for the tenants. He continued by reading a part of the fencing section of page 66 of the Guidelines. He referenced photos in the staff report and explained how the application differed from the guidelines. Chair Newbern asked if there was any record of the fence that is parallel to Rock Street spanning from 1016/1018 to 1020 being approved by the commission. Mr. Minyard said that he could not find any record of it coming before the commission for a COA. There was a discussion on other approvals of fencing in the other item. Mr. Minyard stated that this item (No. One) was not required to go to the Board of Adjustment. He continued to state the recommendation of approval. Chair Newbern asked if the Commission had the option of asking the non -conforming fence be moved halfway back to where it should have been put. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked questions about a possible fence that runs east and west parallel to the 1020 Rock Street building. Mr. Minyard clarified that 1020 Rock Street building was built on the north and west property lines and that there was not a fence there. The 1020 Rock Street building serves as the fence for the neighboring properties. He noted that the existing fence is not part of the application. He stated the staff recommendation from the staff report. Mr. Minyard clarified for Commissioner Peters that the fence in this item was for the two rent houses to the north and that it would provide enclosure for pets or whatever. Commissioner Tatum also stated that the fence shown in the photos on page two of the staff report was the entrance to the house behind. Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve the item with staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. Commissioner Peters stated that the issue to him was that the fence that is there would not be allowed under the guidelines and that he would not want to adjoin a fence that was against the guidelines to another fence that was improper. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. A discussion occurred on whether to expunge or rescind the previous vote. Ms. Weldon checked the bylaws and found the provision for expunging the vote. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to expunge the previous vote. Commissioner Peters seconded and the motion to expunge was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Commissioner Peters summarized the application and his position of how the fence does not adhere to the guidelines. He continued that if the commission approved the fence abutting it, that they would in essence be approving the existing fence that had 3 not been approved by the commission in the first place. Mr. Minyard stated that the fence is non -conforming to the guidelines but is not a non -conforming fence according to the zoning code. It does not require a Board of Adjustment variance. Mr. Peters relayed comments from other property owners about how they have felt that they had been wronged concerning the height of fences in the district. They stated there needed to be more uniform and consistent. Chair Carolyn Newbern summarized the comments of staff recommendations that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to match the non -complying fence, Mr. Peters comments of what the commission should be considering is the proposed fence, and the guidelines state that the fence should be three feet tall to the midpoint of the house and then six feet tall thereafter. Ms. Weldon noted that since the applicant was not in attendance, that it was an option for the Commission to defer the item. The applicant could amend the application at that time. There was a discussion that the applicant would need to amend their application for the commission to vote on different heights of the fences. If the item was deferred, the applicant could amend their application at that later date. Ms. Weldon advised the commission that the commission could not amend their application. Mr. Peters made a motion to vote on the item as presented. It was not seconded. Mr. Minyard asked for a point of clarification from Ms. Weldon that if the application was denied and they came back with another application for a shorter fence, would that not be a substantially different application that could be filed within the one year limit? It was decided that a different height of fence was a significantly different application. Chair Newbern made the point that these questions asked are why the applicant needs to be present at the hearing. Chair Newbern stated that there are issues that need to be answered from the applicant. Commissioner Tatum asked if Mr. Minyard had been on the property. He answered that he had been by the property, but only on the sidewalks. She asked if the air condenser units were just on the other side of the fence. He stated that he did not know. She continued that the fence might be used to hide any ac units that were there. Commissioner Peters asked if all of the questions had been written down that was to be asked of the applicants. There was a discussion of how long a deferral can be granted. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer the application for one month for cause for additional information that was brought up in the meeting. Commission Bell seconded the motion. The questions that the commission would like answered are as follows: 1(Location of the air conditioner units in relation to 1020 Rock Street building, 2) Justification as to why the fencing cannot be built to the Guidelines specification of 3 feet high to the mid -point of the house and then six feet thereafter or starting with a six feet tall section at the midpoint of the house and how many feet of each type of fencing 0 would be involved, 3) If existing six foot fence at the front fagade of the house could be relocated at the midpoint of the house, 4) Photos of the interior of the courtyard area (the area north of the 1020 north wall), 5) Which side of fence to be placed outwards, and 6) State reason for necessity of six foot fence instead of shorter fence. Commissioner Peters asked if Staff had permission to go on the property. Staff said no. Chair Newbern stated that the burden of proof should be on the applicants to justify any requests. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. There were no citizens present for this item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. STAFF UPDATE: April 2. 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its' recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. COMMISSION ACTION: Aaril 9. 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. 5 Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: May 3, 2007 A fence has been installed on the property without approval of the Historic District Commission or a permit being purchased from the City of Little Rock Planning Department. The fence has been installed what appears to be a six foot tall fence (Staff did not enter onto property to measure fence) that starts midway back from the front facade. This fence does conform to the design guidelines. 101611018 Rock Street (same angle as photo on page 3 of this report.) L 101611018 Rock Street as viewed intersection of Rock and 11 th. from the The gate, instead of being at the front facade of the house, has been installed near the midpoint of the house. The mailboxes are on the fence as before. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following condition: 1. Obtain building permit from the City of Little Rock retroactively. ,n Febrtary 9, 2007 Brian Minyard L.R lEstorlc District Conn aLssion Deft. of Plann�:�mg and Dev "2.3 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR. 72201 Re. 1016 Rack Street — Fence Pwject Brian, The Ld_seed CIA-k is to add tan additional 50' of fence 6 foot hi53 an The sonth pyaperty Line of 1016 Rock. Whm ttte bWldhlg is dcmOlished it rill leave an e:MP P'exPO"d exam. The fence wilt match Ae aatisting 6' dag-ew Pukeel on the rtantleast, anal .h, andwest shies ct'the Propem" Tharoks, .Barbara (1. Ckwe Cover letter from applicant DEPARlIf NT OF PLN'-NM\'C AN-D DE`'ELOPNM LITTLE ROCK 723 West Markham St-eet HISTORIC Tittle Rork .9&mwas 72201-1334 A " DISTRICT Phone: 1,501)31,14790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 COMMISSION APPrLICAnON FOR A CERTIFICATE OF "PROPIUATE ES Application Date: 1S_ 2- >__�rk 1. Date of Public Hearing: —day of 200 Tat p.m. 2. Address Df-Property: ' 3. Legall7esc ' tionof P ro perry � � +a 5 �7r•o ���, � z�_ 4. Property Own(,r ne Address, Phone Fix) - �� ems_ 5.Owner's Agent: )PhoneJFa+c/mstri[) —_ _. 6. Projcct Description (additlonalpapFsmay b ad&A): _ 7. Fstimared Cost of Improvemants:. S. 7nnmg Classaftcariae: Is the pAtnposod change a permitted use? Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent:- lnerope-Wbi;theownerahrpubkhcmAgJ• NOTE; Should there be c4twr% (dea-Ise, materiels, size, etc.) from the apPww-d COA, applicam shall nedfyCottuniSsion staff and Woe appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission dons not -:usa applicant nr pz-v ty from complis -e &id) OdWc appll:sue codes, ordinances or poticiw ofthe atv unless Futed by the Commission or staff. Rewnsibiiicy for id= df)ing such codes, ordt- aaDcC-s oC 1:a)zeies rrsgs with the ftPPE ant, 0WMr or WML ('This section w be completed by staff): Little Rock .Historic Alstrict Commission Action C Denied ❑ WtbArawn ❑ Approved [Approved with Condiflo s © See Attached Conditions Staff Sipwum• �_ _ __ — Date:_ Littk Rv�.k Historic Disuict Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markhmn Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 12201 o Phone: (501) 371.4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 �'d LOt)Z-SSE-{rTZ aJ00 -9'e dz2teo to so qaj Application DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �i DEVELOPMENT €i LITTLE ROCK !, HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street ArkansasLittle Rock, DISTRICT Phone: (501 ) 3l74790 Fax: (50) 399-3435 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two DATE: March 12, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core ADDRESS: 316 East 11th Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 316 East 11th Street. The property's legal description is the West 72' of Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. (The legal description of 1020 Rock is the East 68' of Lot 7, Block 45.) The building at 316 East 11t" Street is a ca. 1900- 1910 Garage building and is considered a 'Contributing Structure to the MacArthur Park Historic District as stated in the 1988 Survey. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (1 being the highest and III being the lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Location of Project Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1978 Survey lists it as 1895 construction. This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the east side. An eight feet wood fence is requested with a style to be similar to the one already approved on the south side. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: September 22, 2006, a Certificate of Compliance was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for replacement of wood garage door to match in profile, panels, and detailing of the original. August 4, 2005, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for renovations to 1020 Rock Street that included fencing between 1020 and 316 on the south property line. March 13, 2002, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for the addition of a potting shed addition to the rear of 316 E 11th Street. January 2, 1986, a COA was issued to Lester O. Gaines to modify the central garage door that was never implemented. 316 East 11 th Street Front (South) Elevation 1020 Rock and 316 East 11 th Street 316 East 11 th Street West elevation PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 8' tall wood fence to compliment the existing fence on the property on the south side of the property. The fence will be placed on the eastern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the structure at 316 East 11th Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. The new fence will be similar to the fence on the southern property line with the exception of the brick piers. The new fence will not have the brick piers. 2 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. This fence is on the east side property line of 316 E 11 t" Street. The fence would meet with the fences at the north and south property lines that are already eight feet tall. To make this new section be six-foot tall would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. This item is on the Board of Adjustment's agenda for March 26, 2007. It has been filed because of the additional height of eight feet versus the code maximum of six feet in height. v � is 6:i, i s c•i;4 �,, - - k%o Q. \\*mt. of E vN\N Existing fence on north property line of 316 E 11 th NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. He included an overview of the property ownership of the applicants. He continued to discuss previous application on the site for the previously approved fencing. The approved fence was for 8' wood fence with brick piers on the south property line and 8' without any piers on the north property line. The proposed fence is to be a wood fence without any brick piers to match the existing fence on the north property line. He noted that this item is going to the Board of Adjustment on March 26. The zoning code specifies a maximum of 6 feet tall for side fences, and this is proposed at 8 feet tall. This report and the minutes will be given to the staff of the Board of Adjustment for inclusion in their write up. He stated the staff recommendation of approval. Chair Carolyn Newbern remembered the previous application to the site and the plea for an 8' fence for security and to visually block the views. She continued that the 3 commission approved a fence that did not comply with the guidelines because of special circumstances. Mr. Minyard described the various fences (the height and location of them) and the height of the proposed fences. Commissioner Peters stated that with the building no longer there, he did not see the need for the additional height of the fence. (The building was approved for demolition in a separate COA on February 5, 2007.) He continued and referred to the guidelines that recommend having a shorter fence. He remembered that special considerations were given for the added height on the fence, but those conditions are no longer a factor and that he could not support the request for added height. He did not agree with approving another fence to match a fence that had been approved (for special considerations) against the guidelines. He stated that the commission should follow the guidelines or change the guidelines to be 8 feet. Mr. Minyard restated that the commission may approve items that do not comply with the guidelines for special circumstances. Keep your guidelines in consideration when you vote and it is the commissions' job to say if the special considerations necessitate an approval not in compliance with the guidelines. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that the applicant did reference other fences in the area at the earlier hearing. Commissioner Susan Bell stated that she could not support an eight -foot fence on a vacant lot. She continued that there were ways to join an eight and a six-foot fence that was aesthetically pleasing. There was a discussion that the vote was on the application as proposed, the commission could not change the application. Chair Newbern restated that it was a jumble of fence heights and that either way it went, there was going to be a joining of a six and an eight -foot fence one place or another. She restated the proposal with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peters stated that he could not vote for this in good conscience as presented and would ask for a deferment. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer for cause (for more information) for one month. He asked for clarification for the need for an eight -foot fence from the applicant. Commissioner Bell seconded. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Chair Newbern asked Staff to notify the Staff of the Board of Adjustment of the outcome of this meeting. Chair Newbern asked if the applicant needed to notify property owners again if it was deferred. Staff answered no. Ms. Weldon asked that the record show that no citizens were present for either item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. 2 STAFF UPDATE: Aril 2, 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its' recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. COMMISSION ACTION: April 9. 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Mav 2, 2007 There has been no communication with the applicant concerning this application. Staff recommends to withdraw the application without prejudice. 5