Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2013-029 Approval Of Vinyl Fence Leonard & Benjia Hollinger�u 4C a/' -Dvptf Sawv-v,� uVl I �---Y DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 1. DATE: May 13, 2013 APPLICANT: Leonard & Benjia Hollinger ADDRESS: 420E 11th COA REQUEST: Approval of Vinyl Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 420 E 11 th. The property's legal description is "Lots 7,,,8 and S 1/2 of 9, Block 58, Original City of Little,;R6&, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house was constructed ca 1950. The 2006 survey form states: "This hipped roof version of the Modern Ranch style includes a classic revival porch and an attached carport." It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. In the December 2, 2009 State Review Board meeting, Additional Documentation was reviewed to change the period of significance through 1960 for the District. That was approved by the NPS on January 21, 2010. This application is an enforcement issue. The application is to seek approval for a vinyl fence that was installed earlier this year after a COA was approved for a fence on September 10, 2012. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 10, 2012, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger for fence replacement and construction of a retaining wall along 11th Street. On October 14, 2010, a COA was issued,to Leonard Hollinger to replace his original windows with vinyl windows. „i , "j. On February 2, 1989, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to remove one story residence and construct new one story residence and rear guest house. Only the rear guest house was built of this plan. On June 23, 1988, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to demolish a structure. On October 26, 1981, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to erect an open carport canopy on the west side of the house. '77 - .391 Existing view from southeast from Sept. 2012 Existing east elevation- from Sept 2012 _—M condition of fence from Sept.r-2012 Existing condition of fence from Sept- 2012 -Existing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fence by carport on south side from Apffl 2013 Fence along Commerce Street from Appl 2013 1 2 of 8 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66 and 67 of the Guidelines, it states the following 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. , Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36') tall; pickets should be no wider than four inches (4') and set no farther apart than three inches (3"). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the house. 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 facade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. Chain -link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Frep4standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are rn close proximity to the s match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. The reason that this application is back before the Commission is that the owner installed a fence that the Commission did not approve. Mr. Hollinger stated in the hearing of September 10, 2012 that he wanted to make his home more maintenance free. The photo he provided to the Staff with his application is at the right. It is of a 3 of 8 laewalK May rearure new wars uiat �i 1, �E. • 7•', F•,W�. `+- � x' ;; j ! ING Proposed fence from September 201217earin wood fence with the lattice above. He interpreted this to mean that he could install a vinyl fence. However, the staff report states "a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence". Below is the text from the Staff report for the September 10, 2012 hearing: FENCE: The proposed fence will feature a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence. The height of the fence will vary between 6'4' and 6'-8" because of the slope of the land. The fence will start at the northeast corner of the house and extend northward to the property line. There will be a drive gate cut into the fence at the curb cut. This fence is very visible from the Commerce Street side. This fence is located in the rear yard, but has street visibility because of the corner lot. Research into fencing types in the 1950's have not been conclusive as to what the prevalent style of fence was with a ranch house. At the end of this report are some images from a Sunset Book on fences published in 1951. However, since it is uncertain what the prevalent style should be, it is safer to install a simpler fence. A replacement of the fence as is, would be in Staffs opinion, style neutral. This application will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, COMMISSION ACTION: June 13 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation of the item. He stated that this was an enforcement issue. He read from the, tall report the last paragraph on page 3 of 6 of the staff report. He continued that he ha original photo from the September 2012 hearing if the Commission wanted to see it a • q he one comment from the neighborhood was the original call that reported it to t ff recommendation is denial on this application. He asked if there were any questia aff before the applicant came forward. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked Staff how long the fence took to install. Mr. Minyard said that it took at least two days, but they,would need to ask the applicant that question. Vice Chair Toni Johnson asked if the applicant got, a copy of the staff report from September 10 before that meeting. She asked if the letter stated they had appro 4 for a typical wood fence with lattice above. He stated that that was included in the Staff r nd it did not say approval as it was only a staff report at that time. The photo th u ubmitted was of a wood fence. The recommendation was to approve a wood fe ubmitted by photo. Vice Chair Johnson asked Staff if the applicant received any w communication after the vote was taken on September 10, 2012. Mr. Minyard said that he did. Mr. Minyard responded that they get two different things. He had in his file a letter from September 13, 2012 that was sent to inform the applicant of the vote count and that it passed. He also received his Certificate of Appropriateness. The text on the COA was "Project to be completed as amended and as approved by the Historic District Commission in the September 10, 2012 hearing." Vice Chair Johnson stated that he would know to go back to the staff report for that hearing for any explanation. 4of8 Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey wanted to clarify that the first Staff knew about this was when it was reported to Staff. He wanted to .know if there was a lot of discussion between the informant and Staff. Mr. Minyard stated that the informant just wanted to confirm what had been approved by the Commission. The conversation was fairly short. Mr. Leonard Hollinger, of 420 East 11th Street, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He explained why the fence was built as it was. He asked that the Commission approve the fence as built. He said that there were several factors that were considered: privacy, maintenance free, and long lasting. He surveyed the District and did not find a fence that fulfilled the three factors above. He chose to install a vinyl fi�Olhat fit these three factors. He said that there are many wooden fences in the district but they Would not meet the standards as set. He maintained that the fence blends with the house and guest house. He stated that he did not build the fence in defiance of the Commission but was under the impression that the long lasting maintenance free allowed him to go with a vinyl fence. Vice Chair Johnson asked why he submitted a photo of a wood fence in his original application. He said that he did not find any vinyl fences in the district. She then asked if he knew he was going to install a vinyl fence at the time of his original hearing. He stated "No". Commissioner Wiedower said that she was sorry that we are in this situation. She stated that she was worried about how a possible failure to communicate on the vinyl fence or a wood fence in the hearing could have happened. She said that it was never in her mind that they were talking about a vinyl fence. She rem`ernbered conversations on the height, the lattice on top, and other issues that night. The, -style is the same as the proposed wood fence, but the fence has problems following the guidelines. She stated that this fence was a problem for her. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that a reason that Mr. Hollinger did not find any vinyl fences within the district is that the word vinyl raises red flags in the hearing. And that is why he did not find any vinyl fences in the historical area. He commented that the Historic District Commission was in a tough spot because it is an expensive fence and the Historic District Commission could be deemed worthless if this fence was approved. Even though the Commission takes items on a case by case basis, he said that it would be difficult to not approve vinyl fences or any other material that was not appropriate in the future. Mr. Hollinger asked if Commissioner Ripley had looked at other wood fences. He commented that he had and he does not disagree on his motive on the maintenance issues. But the Commission is here for historically appropriate fences. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the fence has a lot. of visibility being across from the Arts Center. Mr. Hollinger agreed and said that it complements the area. Commissioner Mark Brown related a pers❑ �ence with another commission on wood versus fiberglass columns. He had replace d columns that were rotting with fiberglass columns of the same style. The guidelines called for a similar material. He thought when they were painted, you would not tell the difference, but he was denied the use of the fiberglass columns. In the case of this fence, if the vinyl fence were painted, as his columns were, would it look like a wood fence? In his opinion, it would still look like a painted vinyl wood fence. The charge of the HDC is to protect historic nature of the neighborhood. 5 of 8 Mr. Hollinger stated that a half brick house doesn't really fit either. There was a discussion about how the motion was to be worded. Mr. Minyard stated that all motions were made in the affirmative, but if a Commissioner wanted to deny the application, simply vote no. A motion to approve as installed the vir:ye ce at 420 E 11th Street as submitted was made by Commissioner Boaitey and it was: secanded by Commissioner Brown. The motion was denied with 0 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent (Van6ndingham). Commissioner Ripley asked what his options at this point were. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, said that he could appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days. Commissioner Ripley said that he thought it went before the City Board. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission was quasi-judicial and repeated that it went to Circuit Court. Mr. Hollinger stated that he would win in court with a jury of his peers. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the motion included all or part of the fence that was along 11th Street. Mr. Minyard stated that he assumed that the motion "as installed" included the entire vinyl fence. Ms. Weldon agreed with Mr. Minyard and stated that the application did not specify a particular part of the fence, so therefore it included the entire fence. Mr. Hollinger asked that if he did nothing, what would happen. Ms. Weldon said that it would be an enforcement issue and that it would be taken to court. He asked on what authority the city would do that. Mr. Hollinger restated that he believed that he would win in court but understands that the Commission needs to save face. He did say that he would be willing to see if there was a way to get out of this situation. He apologized for putting the Commission in this position, but at the time he did not think he was putting the Commission in that situation. There was a discussion on who called in the complai . Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not believe that he installed the fence mali ommissioner Ripley concurred with Commissioner Wiedower. Ms. Weldon said that the exclusive remedy is1Poi�appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days. Vice Chair Johnson said that she was sorry about the situation but was glad that people were interested in maintaining their properties, but the Commission's charge was to follow the guidelines. Commissioner Wiedower was hopeful that the Commission could avoid this situation in the future. . •