Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2016-041 Staff Report For Project Background And Description Include Photos and Graphics 12/12/2016DEPARTMENT 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. C. DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Jimmy Moses, Magnolia Flats, LLC ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The property's legal description is "Lot 1 and 2, Block 150, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: "Some Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick detailing." It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. This item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue east of the apartment building. The fence around the swimming pool area was included in that permit that was not routed properly for HDC staff review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construction of a duplex at 507 Rock Street that included the fence in question. Page 45 of 63 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Below is the section of the Guidelines referring to fences under which this fence was approved. The Guidelines state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard-36" Rear yard fencing-72" 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 building. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36') tall. On wood fences, 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 building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72" tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. 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 Page 46 of 63 pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that 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 staff report of May 11, 2016 stated that the fence along Capitol Avenue was to be thirty-six inches tall. In the hearing, Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application, stated that the fences on Rock Street and Capitol Avenue were planned to be thirty-six inches tall. He continued that a landscape plan would be submitted for the parking lot. That parking lot was to be expanded and reconfigured. The original proposal when the duplex was being considered was to fence the parking lot with automatic gates and secure the parking lot. The parking lot was to be reconfigured and additional spaces and a driveway from Rock Street added. The duplex is no longer under consideration. In its place, a swimming pool has been built with a small gathering space that was described in the original application. It appears that the parking lot reconfiguration and expansion will not be built. In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is labeled "6' Fence". Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled "3' Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence in the photos. It is immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building. In the photo to the right below, the white truck is parked in the alley. The three foot fence is shown just beyond the red car and the jeep. The six foot fence does not provide any additional security to the parked cars. The cars are parked in a non -secured parking lot that has the alley functioning as the aisle; the cars back into the alley to leave and enter the parking lot through the alley. The fence was approved at the thirty-six inch height but was installed at the six foot height. This fence, along with others, begs the question of taller fences at the public right-of-way. This fence serves to reinforce the negative stereotypes about the security of downtown. This fence Page 47 of 63 does not totally enclose the parking. It does not provide required fencing around the swimming pool area. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land that would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14. 2016 Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had not completed the notices as required. Staff is recommending deferral of the item until the December 2016 Hearing. A motion was made to defer to the December 2016 hearing by Commissioner Ted Holder and was seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12. 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have any questions of Staff. Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an oversight on their part that the fence was installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to allow them to keep the fence. Chari BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had been installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required. Jimmy Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that it is not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but that the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there was a variety of fences and does not believe that this fence,is out of character. Commissioner Toni Johnson appreciates that it was noted that it was a mistake. She cannot support the application because it is on a main street and that it projects an image of an unsafe neighborhood. She supports staff's recommendation. She does support Moses Tucker's work downtown. Commissioner Ted Holder said that he went to look at the fence before the meeting. He stated that there is lots of controversy about fences in town. He said that they are intrusive when they are six feet tall. He appreciates that they were upfront on the mistake. He agrees with Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Dick Kelley said that the property across the alley has a three foot fence. He believes that the six foot fence is out of proportion with the adjacent fence. He did state that he supported their work downtown. Mr. Moses spoke of Trapnall Hall fence and noted that the Rainwater Building that they developed had a six foot fence. He stated that neighbors want more safety and their company is trying to stabilize the neighborhood. Page 48 of 63 William Page Wilson spoke of issues of continuity. Trapnall Hall is set back and the height of the fence has to do with the scale of the building. MacArthur Park it is an urban historic area. As a honest mistake, he would let the fence stay. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the fence to remain as constructed at 6 foot. Commissioner Johnson seconded and the motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 5 noes. and 1 recusal (Frederick). Those commissioners that had not voiced their reason, as to why they voted as they did, spoke to that point. Chair Bowen stated that it was non -conforming with existing structures on the size of fences. Commissioner Russell stated that taller fences do not make a good neighborhood. Mr. Moses thanked the Commission for hearing us and reminded them that they were across the street from the Transit Center and feels positive with the associated crime and activity with the transit center. He urged them to consider the upkeep and maintenance of the properties. He admitted he was wrong and would live with the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Russell agrees with you, though this commission just revised the guidelines. He stated that Mr. Moses's argument is faulty since the fence does not turn the corner and secure any property and is perpendicular to a three foot fence. Page 49 of 63