HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2008-018 Staff Report, Photos, Graphics, 08/18/2008,r
i�� r�' LITTI.E ROCK
EG HISTORIC
'l DISTRICT
0
;! dr COMMISSION
DATE: August 18, 2008
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. B.
APPLICANT: Rosalind "Michelle" Welch, 1004 Commerce Street
ADDRESS: 1004 Commerce Street
COA Addition to rear of house, roof replacement, siding replacement,
REQUEST: picket fence in front with arbor and exterior lighting.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1004 Commerce
Street. The property's legal description is " the
south 47.5 feet of the east 89.0 feet of Lot 10 and
the N 1/2 of Lot 9, Block 58, Original City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is
of a Priority II (1 being the highest and III being the
lowest) and Historical Significance of Local
significance. 1988 survey lists the property as a ca.
1910 Colonial Revival house and a contributing
structure.
qt
11 trn'
�u.�Vs�'
-�rY 4J1av
irrn €ry 411
-1-3 A 9CP
The application is for an 1) addition to rear of house, Location of Project
2) roof replacement, 3) siding replacement, 4) picket fence in front with arbor and 5)
exterior lighting.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On November 1, 2000, an administrative approval to replace a cedar shingle roof with a
roof of same material with no changes to roof slope and no introduction of new
architectural detailing or materials was granted.
16
Existing north elevation
Existing south elevation
PROPOSAL: 1) addition to rear of house, 2) roof replacement, 3) siding replacement, 4)
picket fence in front with arbor and 5) exterior lighting.
1) Addition to the rear of the house
The proposed addition is a 16' by 30'
addition across the entirety of the back of
the house for a sunroom, mud room and
expanded bathroom. The darkish "L"
shaped feature is a stairway to the attic for
storage access.
Windows:
There will be no new windows on the south
side of the addition. There will be three
3'x6' windows on the north side of the
addition, there will be one 2'x6' window on
either side of the French door on the west
side of the addition. There will also be an
17
a�
Existing Kitchen
Bathroom
Sunromi
6 4M1�Y�i(W Me+m
Mud Room
Proposed plan of addition
oval window above the French door. In addition, on the west fagade, there will be a
4'x4' window. The windows will be single hung Alenco windows, white in color.
Proposed North Elevation with addition
Proposed South Elevation with addition
Doors:
There will be a exterior door on the south side of the addition located in the mud room
with no widows in the door. There is a proposed French door facing west located in the
sunroom.
The photo provided in the packet "Capture the
Outdoors" is similar to the improvements
described by the applicant. There will be an
oval window above the door instead of the
modified Palladian window.
Roofing on the new addition: The sunroom
portion of the addition will have a gable end
roof as shown in the "Capture" photo. The
mudroom area will have a shed roof slanting to
the west that will tie into the existing and
proposed roofs. The shingles will be Tamco
Architectural shingles, weatherwood in color.
The proposal is to re -roof the entire house.
The siding on the addition would be Hardiplank
8" smooth lap siding. The color would be pale
yellow with light colored trim.
Capture the Outdoors photo
2) Roof Replacement
The roof replacement will replace the cedar shake roof with architectural shingles. The
shingles will be Tamco Architectural shingles, weatherwood in color. The proposal is to
reroof the entire house.
3) Siding Replacement
18
The proposal is to replace the wood siding on the original house with Hardiplank 8"
smooth lap siding. The trim pieces would remain from the original house if in good
order. If replaced, they would be replaces with the same size lumber.
4) Picket Fence in Front with Arbor
The picket fence would be across the entirety of the front of the property along
Commerce Street and return tot the existing fences on the north and south sides of the
house. The applicant states the fence will be" no taller than 36" tall, pickets no wider
that 4 inches wide and nor further than three inches apart. The design will be
compatible and proportionate to the house. It will be made of wood and painted white
or cream dependant on the trim color I use for the house." The arbor will me made to
duplicate the one shown below.
Wn1/1L U ri �y11ti V na, tn�.
e s [bM+N cv..ryR�'• �' IPIs.aTa!
petilew vadn W 'uA
x:++t+nnt »w.ar rxc
rr.awrc Ca�fPCYI
CCtiI,M
Et;CE
X
Penn 14-+a-
A .
--T
1 32o.y �
1
r z• Ift
Ff.)n+e
r
j
tt�i'
l
�
C1
4
Location of fence in front yard
Proposed Arbor on Commerce Street
5) Exterior Lighting
The details of the lamppost and lighting to be added to the front yard were not provided
to the Staff for review.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
1) Addition to the rear of the house
The zoning of the site is R-4A that has a 25' setback for the rear yard. This addition will
abut or go over the setback, which would require a Board of Adjustment Variance. The
addition is difficult to see from the street, so it is questionable fi the commission should
hear the case. However, the addition of the fence, the replacement of the siding, and
the reroofing dictates that a public hearing is held.
It appears that the new window on the south side of the structure is in the original block
of the house. This would involve removing, replacing, or adding a window to the original
structure. In the photo above, labeled "Existing South Elevation" the photo shows two
vertical windows (one over one). Staff is not supportive of removing two original
windows and adding this new window, especially a square windows that does reflect the
19
original verticalness of all the existing windows on the original block of the house.
Modifying a size of an existing window or adding a new window is not recommended in
the guidelines as stated on page 52 as quoted below:
Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design
with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded,
beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character -defining feature of a
building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the
primary fagade or to a secondary fagade if easily visible. Windows should
be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary
due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as
possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows
should not have snap -on or flush muntins. Unless they originally existed,
jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on
an historic building.
According to the website, the proposed windows are all vinyl. The applicant will need to
verify that in the public hearing. Having vinyl windows on an addition that is clearly
designed and readable as such, is not the same as replacement vinyl windows in the
original structure. The vinyl windows actually make the addition read more clearly that it
is a addition. Staff is supportive of the window choice in the addition only, not for the 4'
x 4' window replacement. Staff does recognize that the 44 window is located in he
bathroom. However, drapes, blinds, or window film can be used to block the view from
outside.
The guidelines state on page 62 under additions (new Rooms) that:
Additions should be of a compatible design, in keeping with the original
structure's character, roof shape, materials, and the alignment of window,
door, and cornice height. Additions include porches and bay windows, as
well as entire wings or rooms. They should be located on the rear fagade
and be subordinate to the original structure.
The original building and the addition should be differentiated in a manner so that the
addition looks new and does not duplicate the original structure. The siding and roofing
may be different from the original block of the house. Those changes, along with
decreasing the size of the addition 12-18" on the north and south facades will create a
break form the original block of the house. This would result in an addition 27' to 28'
wide instead of 30' wide. The roofing (architectural shingles) and siding (Hardiplank
smooth lap siding) could be different with a logical break in this scenario.
The elevations provide show that the cornice height of the addition will be the same as
the original. This will aid to tie the addition to the original house while maintaining
separation of the addition. The roof over the sunroom is a gable. There are two other
gables on the main block, on facing east and one facing north as shown in the 1978
photo earlier in the report. The rest of the addition will be a shed roof. These roof types
proposed are either already on the house or are a common means of covering additions
to the rear of a house of this era.
20
21 Roof Replacement
The applicant has stated the there has
been issues with squirrels living in her
attic and has provided a photo of the
damage where they enter her roof. The
Guidelines state on page 58:
Roofs should be preserved in
their original size, shape, and
pitch, with original features
(cresting, chimneys, finials,
cupolas, etc.) and, if possible,
with original roofing material
(slate, tile, metal.) Composition
shingles may be used if the
original material is not Roof damage attributed to squirrels
economically feasible. Dark colors are best for historic buildings.
If the overall roof is still watertight, this is only a maintenance issue to repair the squirrel
damage. The applicant has not noted that the roof is leaking, only that there is squirrel
damage. Staff recommends that the applicant repair the roof, not replace it.
3) Siding Replacement
On page 50 of the guidelines, it states:
Historic siding materials, such as weatherboard, wood shingles, and
stucco, should be preserved. If original siding materials must be replaced,
the new siding should match the original as closely as possible, especially
with respect to board size. Original corner boards should be duplicated in
their full original dimensions.
The applicant has provided photos of squirrel damage to the exterior of her home. The
applicant has not provided proof that the siding is uniformly rotted or non -water tight
overall. Again, Staff feels that this is a maintenance issue and that individual board
should be replaced to remove the threat of squirrels living in the attic. Siding can be
obtained locally for the repair work. Staff is not supportive of the removal of the original
siding.
4) Picket Fence in Front with Arbor
The applicant has proposed a front picket fence using the language for picket fences
found on page 66. She has also proposed an arbor with gate as shown earlier in this
report. The materials used and the technique used should distinguish this as a modern
element. Staff is supportive of the fence as described by the applicant and a duplication
of the arbor as shown in the photo.
5) Exterior Lighting
Staff recommendation forthcoming on the exterior lighting based on the submittal of the
actual materials.
21
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of hearing.
2. Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit.
3. Addition to rear of home: Staff is supportive of the addition if it does not
encroach into the 25' rear yard setback and is a width of 27' — 28' wide. Staff is
not supportive of the 4'x4' window on the south side.
4. Roof replacement: Staff is not supportive of replacing the cedar shake roof with
architectural shingles.
5. Siding replacement: Staff is not supportive of the siding replacement.
6. Fence and Arbor; Staff is supportive of the fence and arbor.
7. Exterior Lighting: Staff recommendation forthcoming.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 14. 2008
Staff informed the Commission that the legal notices had not been completed in a timely
fashion. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the August 2008 meeting.
Commissioner Susan Bell made a motion to defer to the August 2008 meeting as it was
seconded by Commissioner Julie Wiedower. The motion passed with 3 ayes and 2
absent.
COMMISSION ACTION: Au ust 18 2008
Staff Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item. He noted that the Staff
recommendations on page 7 should be edited. The words Approval with the following
conditions following the Staff Recommendations in bold should be scratched since the
individual sections are noted with an approval for denial.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that in the 1978 photo it looked like there was a
cedar shake roof on the house. Mr. Minyard stated it was difficult to tell from the photo
in 1978 what the roof material was. In November 2000, there was an administrative
approval to replace a cedar shake roof with another. Commissioner Bob Wood asked
what was roofing originally. Commissioner Wesley Walls stated that the roof could have
been slate, wood or metal around 1910. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the
width of the exposure of the siding, Mr. Minyard stated it was in the 4 to 5 inch range.
The applicant, Michelle Welch, spoke concerning the application. She bought the
house in 2004 as her first home and has lived in the district since 1995. Her goal was
as not to infringe on the historic structure, but her goal was to maintain.
She did want to make corrections on the staff report. She will not be taking out any of
the original windows, the bath addition in the rear was to add a windows. She will repair
the original windows.
22
Ms. Welch stated that she has to make repairs to the roof every year at a substantial
cost and would like to replace the roof. There is hole in the gable end where the
squirrels have eaten through the siding, has electrical issues from the squirrel, and has
carpenter ants on the south side of the house.
Chairman Marshall Peters stated he understand the carpenter ant issue and asked
about the repair work. He suggested that if Thompson's water seal, or something
similar, was applied to the roof, it would deter the squirrels eating through the roof.
Commissioner Bob Wood asked if the roof has leaking now and squirrels eat siding as
well. Ms. Welch stated that the roof was not leaking now. He asked if squirrels ate
through Hardiplank. Commissioner Wiedower stated that squirrels would not eat
Hardiplank, based on personal experience. Ms. Welch stated that her house was
individually listed on the national register. Boyd Maher stated that it could be delisted
for a change of siding materials. Commissioner Wiedower asked if she had any history
on the house. Ms. Welch does have some history on the home and thinks the cedar
shakes were applied in the 1980's.
Commissioner Wiedower commented on the drawings in the rear, that the roof pitch
might not work on the rear as shown in the sketches. She asked about the reduction of
the width of the addition on the rear.
Ms. Welch verbally amended her application to have the rear addition to be 28' or less
in width. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked questions about the roof, a shed roof on
one sketch, but a gable on the other sketch. Mr. Minyard clarified the roof on the
original house (a hip roof with two gables). He continued that the new addition would
have a gable over the sunroom with a hip roof over the mudroom joining the hip roof of
the original house. The fascia and soffit would be consistent with the rest of the house.
Commissioner Wiedower commented about the south elevation. She roof in is in
conflict. Commissioner Wood asked what is the purpose of the mudroom is. Ms. Welch
answered it was for the dogs and the washer dryer.
Commissioner Walls stated that since the addition was not as visible from the street, he
was okay with the sketchy drawings. The soffits and fascia will be duplicated on the
new structure.
Jake Yancy, the applicant's contractor, said that he could find a concrete siding to
match the existing.
Chairman Peters asked if they had been in the attic. Mr. Yancy responded that there
are slats for the roof decking. Ms. Welch was sharing a verbal history for the roof.
Commissioner Walls stated it was not unusual for later projects to add asphalt shingles
over cedar shakes. That could have happened at that house. Commissioner Wiedower
asked if they were fairly rustic shakes. The answer was yes. Ms. Welch said the
architectural shingles would be similar in appearance.
23
Mr. Yancy stated that the property was at a crossroads with a lot of repetitive damage to
the structure.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the squirrels were going through the gable vent. The
squirrels go from the gable return into the house. On the gable, it appropriate to put
heavy wide screen to deter squirrels.
Commissioner Wiedower is at a dilemma but cannot vote for replacements of siding.
She has lived with squirrel damage.
Ms. Welch said she was open to suggestions about the siding. Commissioner
Wiedower said that she liked Hardiplank, but it is a change to the historic fabric and
cannot justify removing all of the historic fabric. Ms. Welch asked if she could replace
portions with Hardiplank. Commissioner Wiedower no, it would be too obvious where it
was replace.
Commissioner Wood stated he was blessed with ignorance. He asked about the
replacement of Hardiplank versus the original wood. From a pragmatic standpoint,
Hardiplank makes sense, but not from a preservationist standpoint. He applauded living
downtown. He is having a problem with preservation philosophy and reality.
Ms. Welch said she wants to work with the HDC but needed viable options to maintain
the property without having to do it every six months.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that maybe a lack of information was the problem on
the issue with the squirrels. Surely there are similar situations out there. Chairman
Peters asked if her neighbors have a similar problem. Chairman Peters suggested
spraying the area with a wood treatment where the return is to deter the squirrels.
Sharon Welch Blair, of 2120 Louisiana, spoke in favor of the application. She spoke of
the idea of reality of philosophy of pure preservation and being practical. She spoke of
the issue of Hardiplank use in the district. Compromises must be made.
Chairman Peters asked about using the smooth or the cedar plank Hardiplank texture.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that the siding has a kerf edge. Hardiplank does not
provide it with the kerf edge. Ms. Welch said there are other options to repair the wood
on her hone.
Boyd Maher, AHPP, referred to himself as a "pointy headed state bureaucrat." His
charge is to preserve architectural materials to the greatest extent possible. Change is
allowed and inevitable. State office is opposed to the roof and siding replacement. The
National Park Service is the only one to delist structures. These are the kinds of
changes that will delist a property.
24
Commissioner Wiedower commented about the 51% contributing rule to keep a district
on the national register.
Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Maher to support his statement on delisting properties.
The State Review Board delists properties at their regularly scheduled meetings.
Richard Butler, the chairman of that commission, is present at this meeting tonight.
Commissioner Wiedower said we need suggestions or solutions to present to Ms.
Welch to maintain siding. Commissioner Wood asked what kind of help do we give her.
Mr. Maher said that they have full time Staff in his office to do this type of work.
Ms. Welch stated would like to cut down on continued maintenance.
Richard Butler, a property owner in the same block, gave a history of the property. In
the 1960's he moved into the neighborhood, the owner at the time built a pool. The roof
was removed in 1980's and added the cedar shakes. He appreciated Commissioner
Walls comment on the roof; it was wood, slate, or metal. Roofs have to be replaced on
regular basis.
Mr. Butler stated on the addition, it is not our concern. If the new construction is
discernable from the original house, it is okay. The new addition can be sided in either
Hardiplank or synthetic. Referred to the restoring the first Hotze house at 1620 Main
Street had on problems with the siding and issues in following the guidelines. On this
case, this is a local ordinance district, and you are reviewing it based on local criteria.
On the roof replacement, he suggested roof replacement. The block is a historic
squirrel sanctuary and the squirrels have been there before he had.
On the siding replacement, he suggested that the commission enforce the use of wood
to replace wood.
On the picket fence and arbor, he has no problem with it. He has no comment on the
lighting but hopefully the light is not blinding lighting that was in your eyes.
Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Butler for his rational for reroofing the house. It was
stated that it was Mr. Butler's personal opinion, and it differs from Secretary of the
Interior standards. He shared his experience in reroofing the Hotze house. If there are
three or more layers of roof on the house, it should be removed weight on the house.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not have an issue with the roofing, but the
issue is different from the siding. Commissioner Walls discussed Mr. Butler's last
comments. Mr. Butler commented that the squirrel problem is more than mine is, but
would yield to experts on siding versus squirrels.
Mr. Butler, as Chairman of the State Review Board, has delisting properties for
demolition, fire, moved from locations and inappropriate changes. Commissioner Wood
25
wanted to clarify what was meant by inappropriate changes. If the house was delisted
and the total of the contributing falls below 50%, then the whole neighborhoods would
be affected.
Mr. Maher stated he not concerned with addition or Hardiplank on addition.
Mw said that if she can find viable alternative to Hardiplank, she would do it. She did
not want to so something to delist the structure.
Commissioner Walls asked about the lighting. Ms. Welch stated it would be a lamppost
in the front yard. She asked to amend her application so that the lighting is removed
from the application and come back at a different time on that issue.
Commissioner Walls asked if the siding if denied, would it take one year to come back
and reapply. Ms. Welch asked about what constitutes a substantial change. She
continued that she needs to replace a lot of siding on the house and suspects that she
might have additional foundation problems. Ms. Welch asked to amend her application
to remove the siding from the application. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the
original siding does matter; a reproduction does not give the same results. Chairman
Peters discussed the different types of wood for replacement of the original siding that
needs attention. Commissioner Wood clarified the motion amendment was for the
original structure only.
Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as submitted with
withdrawal of item 5 (siding replacement) and 7 (lighting) with staff recommendations as
amended by the applicant. The application voiced withdrawal of the items.
Commissioner Bell seconded. The item passed with 5 ayes.
Debra Weldon, City attorney, left the hearing at this time.
26