HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric District Commission Special Called Meeting 08-16-2000(SLCity of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
16 AUGUST 2000
MINUTES
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon
Jean Ann Phillips Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller
Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Deborah Wilden
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll
call was taken and there was a quorum. The sole purpose of the special meeting was to discuss
the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for:
Applicant: Chris Pratt
Address: 314 East 14th
Request: Amendment to COA to install vinyl windows
The owner stated that he is requesting an amendment as the existing wooden windows are too
rotten to rehabilitate; the amendment is to install vinyl windows. The approved COA, which was
given in May, allowed the rehabilitation of the wooden and to install storm windows over them.
Additional information on the windows was presented; drawings of the proposed vinyl window
types were faxed and presented to the LRHDC prior to the meeting. A discussion focused on the
owner pleading economic hardship and how that is tied in with the money invested in the
structure's rehab and other costs.
The owner stated that, for various reasons, he plans to hire another contractor; the LRHDC chair
stated that such an action affects the costs of products and labor. There is a great flux in the
market that depends on the GC (general contractor) and if a new one is hired, the costs would
vary. As no work is scheduled until a GC is selected, the new GC should have the same benefit
as the other in terms of costs, comparison, etc. While no work will be done, the owner does have
a FHA 203(k) mortgage, which allows six (6) months from the date that the mortgage is initiated
to complete the project, or October 29.
Greer clarified Pratt's situation: the LRHDC was presented with vinyl windows as an
amendment to the approved COA, but other alternatives are needed. In order to prove that wood
windows are cost prohibitive, the owner must have three quotes. Greer asked about the three
quotes, in terms of the following issues: material costs; the eleven window types; SSB glass
(single glaze); insulated; etc. There was a review of the information that was presented in terms
of sizing, costs, etc.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
16 August 2000 Minutes, Page 2
During this meeting, there was confusion as to what was presented in terms of costs, window
sizing, product, specs, etc. The presented material was reviewed in regards to wooden windows,
comparable costs, etc. The mortgage had budgeted $3,000 for window repairs and there are
estimates of $6,000 for window replacement. The total rehab budget was discussed and how the
project costs cannot exceed the amount of money in escrow. There was some confusion in the
documents detailing project costs: what is actual? What is total mortgage? What is remaining
and what is over budget? It is estimated that the project is $17,000 over budget and he has spent
$11,000. Greer asked if the project had pay requests, percent completion or if there were more
easily read and understood costs break downs. There is no easy break out or break down of
project: land acquisition, rehab costs, etc. There was difficulty for all to understand clearly the
project costs, costs estimates, etc.
Zoeller stated that LRHDC's purpose is to determine whether the wooden windows would prove
to be a financial hardship for the owner; however, a clearer picture of costs and figures is needed.
They don't want to approve something now if the situation is going to change with a new GC;
need a total cost of the windows and installation costs. Gordon stated that a simple, one -page
sheet of a financial statement is needed; it should itemize the balance, rehab costs, costs overrun,
etc. Phillips asked how to decide if the role of the LRHDC is to determine financial hardship --
how can LRHDC legitimize financial hardship as a compromise for the guidelines?
Gordon stated that while the house is contributing, a variance from the guidelines is allowable
but only with proper information.
Black inserted that the design guidelines uphold the ordinance and it is LRHDC's role to uphold
the ordinance and guidelines. An economic hardship is a provision of the city ordinance, but the
applicant needs to provide proof that he cannot meet the design guidelines regulations. There was
some discussion about the specifics of economic hardship and whether it is connected with
someone who simply doesn't want to abide by the guidelines. In an approval of an exception, can
there be conditions made that there would be no future compromise on additional requests for
amendments/changes? The legality of the economic hardship issue was discussed. Gordon made
a motion to have another special called meeting when the proper and simplified financial
statement and information is prepared. The information should spell out what has been done,
how much has been spent and what remains of the rehab project and costs.
Greer clarified what was needed in order to make a decision, which is an item by item listing of
project, window and vinyl clad window costs estimates (vinyl clad has a similar profile and
competitive costs). The LRHDC will convene when the information is provided. The meeting
was adjourned.
ULLUW1NU REINFORCEMENTS
t.0o8
.087
f.008
.070
f.008
.167
1
r .010 1222 1z , 12ooe
7
�. . 813 t ! 2)
r IMPACT
t LOCATION
(n) .050 WALL (2)
0
ROLL FORM
STEEL
U-CHANNEL
. 8811 1
f.012
589
t.012
1.162
t.008
--.230
t.008
1-6--.200
kf.008
.562
7..3�5
015
01.375
t. 010
.334
f.o0a
.210
(2)
C A".ru Ulm r iLA— To ❑C PRINT
.881 .538 ?s5 gTI
44.222 .167 RW/07�B REMOVm INSIDE VCAL WALL EU/
11 03MIPTIDN BY DATE
'CONSTRUCTION MASTER'
SASH STILE
YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO
SCALE EIJI I DATE 9 g5
DRANK BY a62 f OOO ,
NOTE: USE DIE V-262 AND EXTRUDE WITH NO INTEF-OCK
r
t . 005
t. 008 .230
.087 t. oas
.200
f . oo8 �
.070
.562
Y
�.009
7k.010 .125
-. .813
.21b
c
r
r
IMPACT LOCATION
�---
1.162
lt.ais
1.375
r
Ram• -
NOTE: MAKE SURE REINFORCEMENT
S-017 S-017 S MEETING RAIL PLUG
FIT INTO OPENING.
<I IMPACT n
f.015 IJ
1.134 PLUG
*.010
--� — . 080 5
t.00a
. 230 —
f t.010
.562
f�
f . 020
1.+375
I
t.008
.350
t.008
.185
t.005
.105
t.005
.603 *.010
-.000
.070
008
.277
9 . 81301a
5
CHECK HOLLOW WITH FOLLOWING RE I NFORCEMENTS
S-009 (2512) S-020 (9455)
. 230 e
.200 e
f.aoa E f.oio �-
.087 —� .750
� t,oca I
1.00e
. 167
. 22212 .210 8 . 125 $ �_ t.aio 1.575
.813 f+.010
(2) (2) .355
f.oio
:.334
3 ' 08
a
t.012
1.162-
FZEy� DESCRIPTION BY DATE
" CONSTRUCT,I ON MASTER"
LIFT RAIL 1
IMPACT .
LOCATION YOUNGSTOWN , OH I O
SC.{L_ F DATE � � I98 -
(�) 050 WALL (s) DRAWN BY . 062 0o6
0
PUNCH LOCATION
r
N.' .140 .185
N. T. S. N. T. S.
1.012
t.010
2.686 —
1.194
t.010 f.008
.230 .670
t.006
.100
±.010
.562 .0708
t.012
1.972
f.o10
t.010 f.012
t t . 010 1 .282 .562
.625 7 (2) • 908
OO�O
f.010 It.010
f.010 1.492 1.250
. 812
t.012
2.786 —
C ADDm D I M. 562 B TDL EU 1 4-3-M
REV DESMIPTION BY DATE
BRICKMOLD FRAME I
{� -- 4.000 -- --�
lk
N
PINCH SIZE g_ ❑ I 5Tt NCE
•.000
-.010
.425
-.000
-.olo
.563
N.I.J.
I
i
t.008 f.00 t.015
. 210- . 125 1.600
t.020
1.375
t.010
.812
2.
01-33333.03
Pa e 3 of 4
Test Specimen Description: (Continued)
Drainage:
Descri tio Quantity
1/2" x 3/16" slot 2
1/2" x 3/16" slot 2
Location
Bottom of sash, 3-1/4" off each end
Bottom of transom, 1" off each end
Installation: The window employed a vinyl nail fin which was set against a silicone
bedding and secured 4" o.c. using #8 x 1" screws. The test buck was constructed of 2 x 8 #2
grade white fir..
Test Results:
The results are tabulated as follows:
Paragraph
Title of Test
Results
Allowed
2.2.1.6.1
Operating Force
29 lbs
301bs max.
2.1.2
Air Infiltration (See Note #1)
@ 1.56 psf (25 mph)
0.25 cfin/ft2
0.30 cfin/ft2 max.
Note #l:
The tested specimen meets (or exceeds) the performance levels specified in
AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S.2-97for air infiltration.
2.1.3
Water Resistance per ASTM E 547
(tested without screen)
WTP = 2.86 psf
No leakage
No leakage
2.1.4.2
Uniform Load Structural
@ +22.5 psf (exterior)
0.018"
0.184" max.
@ -22.5 psf (interior)
0.052"
0.184" max.
2.2.1.6.2
Deglazing Test
In operating direction at 70 lbs
Meeting rail
0.063"/12.5%
0.500"/100%
Bottom rail
0.063"/12.5%
0.500"/100%
In remaining direction at 501bs
Left stile
0.063"/12.5%
0.500"/100%
Right stile
0.063"/12.5%
0.500"/100%
r f.015
1.482
t.008
.150 f.o10
.362
*.010
-.000
.101
(2)
*.030
-.000
MEE . 740
F LEGS REVISED RW 4-7-9+
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE
VINYL SINGLE HUNG
SASH STOP
Easco Vinsl V -19 0
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
SCALE 3 X SIZE DATE 4 — 7 — S14
DRAWN BY RW .062 f . 006
A RCHI TECTURA L
130 Derry Court - -9405
TESTING rlN�C. web www.t stat .comrk Facsimile 2717-764-4129 • Telephone 717-764-7700
AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S.2-97 TEST REPORT
Rendered to:
DANVID WIlVDOW COMPANY
1813 Kelly Boulevard
Carrollton, Texas 75006
Report No: 01-33333.03
Test Date:
11/13/98
Report Date:
01/05/99
Revised Report Date:
03/09/99
Expiration Date:
11/13/02
Project Summary: Architectural Testing, Inc. (ATI) was contracted to witness testing on
Danvid's Series/Model 98, (PVC) single hung window at their test facility in Youngstown, Ohio.
The sample tested met the performance requirements for an H-R20 48 x 72 rating. Test
specimen description and test results are listed herein.
Test Procedure: The test specimen was evaluated in accordance with the following:
AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S.2-97, Voluntary Specifications for Aluminum, Vinyl (PVC) and
Wood Windows and Glass Doors.
Test Specimen Description:
Series/Model: 98
Type: (PVC) Single Hung Window
Overall Size: 4' 0" wide by 6' 0-5/8"high
Sash Size: 3' 10" wide by 2' 6" high
Finish: All vinyl was white
Glazing Details: The overall glass thickness was 5/8", comprised of two 1/8" thick clear
annealed lites and a 3/8" aluminum spacer system. The fixed lite was set from the interior
against a silicone back bedding and secured with vinyl glazing bead. The operable sash was
exterior glazed against a silicone back bedding and secured using vinyl glazing bead.
Laboratories in Pennsylvania, Minnesota & California
A RCHI TEC TURA L
TES ���� Berry Court • York, PA 1 405
we
INC. web www.testati.com •Facsimile mile 71717-764 4129 •Telephone 717 764-n00
, VDU & Kn, 91M.
Res. Windows & Doors CHARLES FOX
Pager: 660-0016 (501) 315-3300
AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S.2-97
TEST REPORT SUMMARY
Rendered to:
DANVID WINDOW COMPANY
SERIESIMODEL: 98
TYPE: (PVC) Single Hung Window
RATING: H-R20 48 x 72
Reference should be made to Report No. 01-33333.03 for complete test specimen description and
data.
For ARCHITECTURAL TESTING, INC.
David A. Kranz, Technician
DAK: dlm
Laboratories in Pennsylvania, Minnesota & California
Little Rock Historic District Commission
5 October 2000 Minutes, Page 2
The next COA for consideration was:
Applicant: Chris Pratt
Address: 314 East 14th
Request: COA amendment requesting installation of vinyl windows
Staff reviewed the additional information that was requested of and submitted by the owner as
part of his plea of economic hardship; it was requested to install vinyl windows on the structure
instead of the approved wooden ones with storm windows. A review of the information detailed
rehab costs, work not completed, percentage of work completed and estimated rehab costs; the
later was put together by HUD.
Greer summarized the applicant's amended request and reiterated the seven items under the
window design guidelines to consider for rehabilitation, such as replacement should be in -kind to
match original materials and design. The applicant's request, to install vinyl windows, is against
the guidelines. In order to approve materials that are contrary to the guidelines, the evidence
must be convincing. Also, the applicant asked that economic, or financial, hardship be applied in
order to install the vinyl windows; however, based on information submitted by the applicant, it
was not sufficient to determine an economic or financial hardship. The opinion of legal counsel
was requested, if there was additional advice about what is required of the applicant with the
request for economic or financial hardship. Black stated that the LRHDC was clear and concise
as to the information requested of the applicant; his, review of the newly submitted information,
which was received that afternoon (as opposed to earlier as requested in order to review the
information and make a determination) indicates that the estimates and the amount of work yet to
be done are not covered by the amount in escrow. Also, the requested information was not
supplied by the applicant. While there are no established factors to determine a hardship, the
presented information was deficient in the degree of details lacking and needed in order to
determine economic or financial hardship.
The applicant addressed the LRHDC, explaining the financing and rehabilitation process,
associated expenses, etc. On October 29, he will forfeit on the FHA mortgage for the house as he
cannot put in wooden windows due to their expense. There was discussion about exceptions to
the design guidelines, that exceptions possibly could be made for materials rather than design.
However, what is viewed from the street (per the district's design guidelines) is important. The
incompatibility (or not being in -kind) of the material of an architectural feature is not as
important or as distinguishable as the design, when viewed from the street. This decision effects
future owners of the structure as well as in the historic district and establishes a precedence for
future use of vinyl windows.
A discussion ensued about rehab work and its associated cost overruns. It was noted that the
project has exceeded already the estimated costs and is not completed. The applicant was asked if
he could, for example, live with plywood instead of finished floors until money is available to ,
complete them. The applicant stated that he couldn't change the FHA original plan, in terms of