Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2004-011 Memo To Debra Wledon From Charles Bloom 09/20/2005LITTLE ROCK o i I HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Memo To: Debra Wledon DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT From: Charles Bloom CC: Tony Bozynski, Brian Minyard 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Date: 9/20/2005 Re: 1301 Cumberland Street COA and BOA violations. Below is a timeline of the events surrounding the COA and eventual improvements to the property 1301 S. Cumberland Street, Little Rock Arkansas - The end of the timeline has specific details to what actions we can take at the present time. February 12, 2004 Historic District Commission Minute Record 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 13t" 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 Alitel. 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. July 7, 2004 Historic District Commission Minute Record The meeting started after an earlier Design Guidelines work session. It was noted that the applicants for 1301 Cumberland Street were present. A discussion began. Ms. Miller stated that they looked at hardiboard and hardiplank as requested for the structure. They indicated that the hardiboard was intended to replace the first requested vinyl siding. Ms. Miller noted she was impressed with the hardiboard material. She also noted that there was one design that stood out and looked like stucco and would look good with all of the existing brick and split face block. Commissioner Walls clarified that the applicant was indicating the big sheets of hardiboard. Commissioner Weems asked if would work for them. Ms. Miller stated it would work, but will cost them more money, and they were "willing to make that concession as long as everyone is happy with that look." Commissioner Newbern asked if the stucco was different from the hardiboard. Commissioner Walls told her that the proposed material was indeed hardiboard. (Deputy City Attorney Debra Weldon arrived late. Commissioner Weems welcomed her.) Ms. Miller passed out a copy of the products to the Commissioners. Commissioner Walls asked the applicant if they added the porch to the... Ms. Miller interrupted and clarified that it was a "little cover." Commissioner Walls noted that he was familiar with the proposed sheets of hardiplank that the applicant was proposing. He educated the Commission on what types of hardimaterials can be purchased. Ms. Miller showed a color brochure of the hardiboard to the Commission. Commissioner Walls said it looked "pretty good" and that they had used it before. Boyd Maher representing AHPP asked if Commissioner Walls was familiar with panel siding and stated that "there are some brands of artificial stucco, preservation aside, are just inferior products." Boyd then asked Commissioner walls if this was one of those. He responded "No." Commissioner Newbern noted that this was a material that is currently being used in Argenta. Commissioner Walls indicated that the material was cementicous board. Ms. Miller said that she had driven around the neighborhood and noticed that many structures had brick or stone around the first floors and on the second floor, eaves, carriage houses, and garages people used stucco or some kind of stucco material and mixed stone and brick and stucco instead of lapboard and stucco. Ms. Miller stated that she believes it looked good compared to what they had seen driving around the neighborhood and would go with that despite the added cost. Commissioner Newbern said that the combination of materials was more like a Tudor style. Commissioner Walls asked what size bat strip they were going to use on the project. Ms. Miller said it would be very small and be hardiplank as well. She said it appears that they will be approximately three inches. Commissioner Walls said that should be okay. Commissioner Walls asked how thick those would be and cautioned her that the ones she has seen are very thin and less than 3/ inch thick. Ms. Miller said she would like to see the thicker board. Mr. Reddig said it is almost like siding that you over lapping and will be more like 5/8 inch by 3 inches. Commissioner Walls stated that he preferred the proposed materials over vinyl siding. Commissioner Weems said he thought it was wonderful. Boyd Maher asked if the structure was a contributing structure. Commissioner Walls noted that the rear structure was new and the existing one was. Commissioner Walls said it was good, and Commissioner Newbern said it was a good addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Walls noted that the website on the materials presented was http://www.jameshardie.com/. Boyd Maher asked Andre Bernard if they needed to make a formal application. Mr. Bernard responded that the application was already in and this was a follow up as requested in an earlier hearing that approved the construction on the condition that they brought the sample back. Ms. Miller stated that they were "ready to get that building permit." Commissioner Peters made a motion to approve the siding as presented; the motion was seconded, and approved unanimously. And they exited the room. The discussion was over. After the meeting Commissioner Peters stated we should require specific details like model numbers for all windows. November 2004 The applicant requested a building permit for the structure. It was approved with the setback variation. The permit did not address the wall, its height, its materials, the porch on the north side, or the porch facing the courtyard. The applicant had never revisited the Commission regarding any changes in the design. February 2005 to present. It was brought to Staff's attention that a possible COA violation had occurred at 1301 Cumberland Street regarding the construction of a proposed outbuilding and a concrete wall. Staff began researching the case to ensure an accurate timeline was created to help determine what happened in the entire construction purpose. It was noted that the application had changed in design altering it from the original approved COA. These changes include: 1. Footprint Relocation of the outbuilding (increased setback). 2. The approved driveway was relocated. 3. A shed roof was added to the west facade of the accessory structure. 4. Ceiling fans were installed on the underside of the shed roof. 5. Outdoor security lighting was installed on the north and south facades of the original structure. 6. The cinder block wall was constructed higher than specified and not built to the specifications indicated in the COA application. 7. A porch and stairway was added on the north side of the structure between the north facade of the accessory building and the wall. 8. Proposed ivy screening has not been planted to cover the cinder block wall. (Please see examples below.) r QP,,.h Ad4,,l Wall height and Design different .... SetLack lncc®asr:d Afivevlay l eCaItgn Moved Examples of COA Violations I �'T ~ R.dditioni)l UgM r ;'-SSA• } �. Examples of COA Violations Upon further investigation staff has noted the porch constructed north of the accessory building is in violation of existing zoning. This porch was not permitted and will require a variance approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff had a brief conversation with the property owner on Thursday September 15, 2005 regarding the status of his application. His response was "There is no way anything is coming down, its built!" and was not happy at all. At the present time we can send out a zoning officer to issue a citation based on the location of the north porch. This would require a BOA hearing, which would first require a new COA hearing. Staff is willing to accept the footprint relocation as a zoning staff error, but feels that sufficient evidence exists to grant removal of the north porch and reconstruction of the wall. Staff is waiting for guidance from the City Attorney's Office. Our assumption is that the applicant will have to revisit with the HDC, obtain a valid COA, and see the BOA for the northern porch. Debra, we need an answer on how we are to pursue this as soon as possible. Thank you.