Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2004-011 Letter To DOPAD From LRHDC 02/12/2004DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ,. LITTLE ROCK 723 West Markham Street HISTORIC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 COMMISSION February 12, 2004 Historic District Commission Item # 4: 1301 South Cumberland Street. Andre Bernard noted that proper notice was given. The applicants Karen Butler Miller and Bill Rettig presented the item to the Commission. He noted that the existing house on the structure is smaller than surrounding ones and only has two bedrooms and one bath. They were planning to add a courtyard with plants, water, etc. A concrete block wall and an accessory dwelling unit addition will create this courtyard. They said part of the reason for the courtyard was to act as a sound barrier from nearby uses. Mr. Reddig handed out a rendering illustrating the proposed addition to the existing home. The elevation view was from the corner of 13th and Cumberland. Commissioner Weems clarified the view of the property. Mr. Reddig stated that the pictured wall would be equal to the fagade of the existing house. He also stated that the wall might be a foot or two higher or lower than shown. Commissioner Newbern asked for clarification on what split face concrete block was. Ms. Miller noted that a lot of homes in the area appeared to have rough concrete block finishes on them. Commissioner Walls noted that it was like a replication of granite. Ms. Miller said they looked around the neighborhood and saw quite a bit of it. Commissioner Walls asked if the materials chosen for the wall were cost driven or she what they thought was appropriate. Ms. Miller responded that she felt it was appropriate, and it would match the existing structure. Commissioner Walls asked the applicant if they would you paint it. Ms. Miller and Mr. Reddig responded that they would prefer to leave it as is. Commissioner Walls asked questions about the materials on the exterior of the building. Ms. Miller responded that they were going to use hardiboard. Commissioner Walls described what hardiboard was and noted the benefits of it. He stated that it is a cementitious board and he likes it. Commissioner Newbern was impressed. Further discussion regarding the benefits of hardiboard occurred. Commissioner Walls asked for clarification of where they were reusing the windows that you are restoring. Mr. Reddig stated that they were going to use it for the door going into the courtyard, and the doors on the lower level of the accessory structure. Clarification was made and it was noted that the applicant would be reusing doors with windows in them, not windows only. Commissioner Walls asked if there was an outdoor fireplace proposed. The applicants responded, "Yes." Commissioner Walls stated that he liked that idea. Mr. Reddig stated that they both liked the outside. Commissioner Newbern noted that ivy would be good to cover the outside of the wall. The covering would screen the wall and make it less obtrusive. She also noted that they should not let it get out of control. Commissioner Newbern also noted that from her gardening standpoint they should consider heritage roses on - the inside of the wall. (An inaudible response was said by Mr. Reddig) Commissioner Weems had concerns on how high the wall itself was. The Mr. Reddig responded that the cinder block portion would be five feet, and the wrought iron would be three feet. In turn, the wall is only solid for five feet and you can look through the wrought iron. Commissioner Weems asked questions about the windows. Commissioner Newbern asked why they didn't choose wood for the exterior of the windows. The applicant said they would you vinyl. Commissioner Newbern asked if they would consider wood clad windows on the new structure. They said the vinyl windows would look like wood. Commissioner Peters asked for clarification. Commissioner Walls said the primary concern was most likely the depth of the sash and if it was high quality vinyl it may look good. Commissioner Newbern clarified that the window would be one over one. Commissioner Newbern asked if they would be able to bring in a sample of the window. Commissioner Walls asked if they had picked windows out yet. Both applicants responded "No." Commissioner Weems clarified that the new construction work probably would not begin for a couple months since they were still identifying materials. Commissioner Peters asked if they could split the application to allow for changes to the existing house. A discussion began stating that they would be moving a door in the near future and replacing another with a vinyl clad door. Commissioner Walls stated concerns on the roof pitch. He said that the existing homes appear to be 8:12 and the proposed appears to be 6:12. He would recommend matching pitches. Commissioner Newbern said she would like an increased roof pitch as well. A discussion began on the proposed timeline of the project. Commissioner Newbern said they could proceed with the items on the original house and could start on the second part after revisiting the commission. Commissioner Walls stated that the changes to the existing house could proceed. Commissioner Walls recommended that the roof pitch be increased to match the original structure. The applicants agreed that the increase in roof pitch would balance the overall character of both structures. A conversation began regarding the concrete block wall. Commissioner Walls suggested other types off blocks instead of split face. He also stated, that since they were planning on covering this with ivy it should be okay. The applicants acknowledged. Questions arose on whether or not the wall was allowed in zoning. The applicant said the wall was allowed under current zoning regulations. Commissioner Walls summarized the application to be approved as presented in the application and hearing as follows: Proposed existing restoration and maintenance to the existing building be allowed to start immediately and a recommendation that the roof pitch of the new structure match that of the existing structure. The following conditions were placed on the application as follows: that both the siding and trim of the new addition, and window style/design be submitted to staff and approved by the Commission before any work on the new building or wall begins. Noting that the proposed renovation to the original structure as stated in the application is maintenance and does not require approval at this time. Commissioner Walls made a motion for approval as filed with the following conditions mentioned in the summary. Carolyn Newbern seconded. The motion passes 5 yes, 0 noes, 0 absent. Afterwards a brief conversation occurred. Walls asked who they were working with. They stated that they had done the drawings. The lady present noted that she worked for Alltel. Walls joked that the building was really a cell phone tower. Summary of conditions: 1. Recommendation that the roof pitch of the new structure match that of the existing structure. 2. That window details and hardiplank / harditrim siding details be submitted to staff and approved by the Commission.