HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2006-018 Staff Report, Project Background And Description 03/06/2006'
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
.t, LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
723 West Markham Street
DISTRICT
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
COMMISSION
r
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 2.
DATE: May 8, 2006
APPLICANT: Karen Butler Reddig
ADDRESS: 1301 Cumberland Street
COA Amend Certificate of Appropriateness per letter dated March 6, 2006
REQUEST: from City Attorney's office.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1301 Cumberland
Street. The property's legal description is Lot 1
block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
The 1988 survey does not list a particular style for
this building but claims there have been major
renovations. The 1978 survey does not list this
structure at all.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
The applicant wishes to Amend the Certificate of
Appropriateness per letter dated March 6, 2006
from City Attorney's office. Listed below are nine
items that were presented in the letter.
N
Location of Project
This applicant will also be required to file an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) with the City of Little Rock Planning Commission for the presence of a detached
accessory dwelling with kitchen and bath facilities. (If there is not a kitchen facility in the
structure, the applicant will go to the Board of Adjustment.) The Property is zoned R4-A
which has as permitted uses of Single Family and Two -Family residences. The
definition of a Two -Family residence is two (2) attached dwelling units on (1) lot, each
occupied by not more than one (1) family. The CUP will also consider, among other
things, the location and height of the cinder block wall along 13th Street, the second
floor porch located to the north of the Carriage House building, percent of rear lot
coverage and percent of total lot coverage. The next filing deadline for this application
will be May 30, 2006 at 5:00.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On February 12, 2004, a COA was approved and issued to Karen Butler Miller to
"Construct New Carriage House And Courtyard, I.E. Secondary Structure; Demolition Of
Existing Garage." The conditions placed on that COA were as follows: 1.)
Recommendation that the roof pitch of the new structure match that of the existing
structure. 2) The window details
and Hardiplank / Harditrim siding
details be submitted to staff and
approved by the Commission.`
On July 7, 2004, a public hearing
was held and while different
aspects of the project W%as
discussed; the motion was made to
approve the siding materials only.
The Commission and applicants r�;, ti: -`�•
have received complete copies of
the minutes as approved for these -- two meetings. _ ,-
1988 Survey photo of west facade of house
ANALYSIS:
The application as filed is to seek approval for improvements made to the property after
the original COA was issued on February 12, 2004. Staff, at the time, recommended
approval for a Carriage House that sat on the northern property line. Note: Staff, unless
otherwise specified, took all current photos for this report on April 27, 2006 from the
public right of way. Listed below are nine items that were presented in the letter from the
City Attorney's office.
1. Footprint relocation of the
outbuilding.
2. Relocation of the approved
Driveway.
3. Addition of a second story shed
roof to the west fagade of the
accessory structure.
4. Installation of ceiling fans on the
underside of the second story
shed roof.
5. Installation of outdoor security
lighting on the north and south
facades of the original structure.
Current front facade of house.
2
6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and
as described a�the public hearing.
7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the
north facade of the accessory building and the wall.
8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall.
9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side.
Point by point analysis of the nine items as stated in the letter.
1. Footprint relocation of the
outbuilding.
_ = •:
New Construction of outbuildings and
=v-
additions specifically require approval
through the COA process. The
original COA had the building sited
closer to the corner of the cinder
-
block wall than it is now. The location
of the building had to be moved to the
77 77m
present location to adhere to the'_•
Zoning Ordinance Setback re uire-
ments of 15' off of the roperty fine.
The Zoning ordinance regulations
-
supercede the Historic District
Ordinance in matters of building Photo showing increased setback of building to the
locations. The HDC Guidelines south and relocated driveway.
address siting issues, but do not place numerical regulations on the number of feet
required in any setback.
2. Relocation of the approved Driveway.
Public right-of-way improvements, in this case, driveways that are built in the right-of-
way, specifically require approval through the COA process. The Driveway to the
garage doors had to be moved to relate to the garage doors. See above discussion of
the relocation of the building.
3. Addition of a second story shed roof to the west facade of the accessory
structure.
Porches (columns, cornices, railing, flooring detailing) specifically require approval
through the COA process. While the second story porch roof was discussed in the July
7, 2004 hearing, it was not shown on the original documentation and was not included
in the motion that was approved that evening. This porch was not shown on the original
submittals, therefore it was an addition to the project that was not included in an motion
granting approval. The guidelines state on the subject of Porches: on front facades
should not be enclosed; should have wood steps (with risers), not brick or concrete, for
buildings with wood floor porches; should have wood tongue and groove flooring
running perpendicular to the facade; and should not have brick floors or steps. The
3
porch floor is wooden, but it is unknown as to what size material the floor is made of,
what orientation it is or if it is tongue and groove. The steps are missing the risers. The
porch roof is made of corrugated aluminum with exposed rafters.
Photo showing second floor porch covering.
Photo showing composition of wood porch floor
and wood steps.
4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof.
Ceiling fans, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval through the COA
process. While the second story porch roof was discussed in the July 7, 2004 hearing, it
was not shown on the original documentation and was not included in the motion that
was approved that evening. This ceiling fan attached to the porch was not shown on
the original submittals; therefore it was an addition to the project that was not included
in the motion granting approval. The Guidelines state that the mounting of fans on
exterior ceilings should be avoided if visible from the street.
Photo showing increased setback of building to the Photos showing security light on north fagade and
south and relocated driveway. satellite dish.
5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the
original structure.
9
Photo showing height of north wall at door.
Outdoor Security lighting, as stated in the guidelines, specifically require approval
through the COA process. These lighting fixtures are not compatible with a historic
home. Fixtures are available with motion sensitive activation that could be compatible
with the guidelines.
6. Failure to construct the cinder block wall as specified in the COA application and
as described as the public hearing.
In the public hearing of 2-12-04, Mr. Reddig stated, "that the cinder block portion of the
wall 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." This wall was described
graphically without the cinder blocks being installed over the door header.
The wall was installed with the
height ranging from ninety inches
(7'-6") on the east end to seventy-
four (6-2") on the west end with a
height of one hundred fourteen
inches (9'-6") over th ��do?r. The
Zoning ordinance `� es fo
fence on the i
property line. The if feet is
measured from the lowest point: i.e.
if you fill in the courtyard, you must
measure from the outside original
grade. This wall is over six feet tall
at all points. The south wall is
eighty-two inches (6'-10") on the
eastern end and seventy-four (6'-
2") on the western end. This wall is
over six feet tall at all points. jLt uv_�Ix
Photo showing height of north wall at west end. Photo showing height of north wall at east end.
5
The location of the wall as described in the original application was in the same plane
as the northern facade of the house. The wall as built is approximately 30" north of the
north wall. If the wall had been built in the same plane as the facade of the house, the
height would not be an enforcement issue since it would have been built within the
building envelope. Since it was built within the setback, the maximum height by
ordinance is six feet tall (72").
7. Addition of a porch and stairway on the north side of the structure between the
north facade of the accessory building and the wall.
Decks and Porches (columns, cornices, railing, flooring detailing) specifically require
approval through the COA process. This porch was not shown to the Commission as it
was added to the project after learning of the increased setback from the side property
line. This knowledge was gained though the process of obtaining the BR'Xa
t
that was pulled
,J on October 4, 200?j-r� J- `�
d 'fYa'�'�t'�` 4- --i 4( �".� , �/�.r..� toc-- .�A
The Guidelines state that decks- 1) should be located on the rear and be screened from
street view with fencing and or native evergreen plant and shrubs where visible. 2)
should be stained or painted to match or blend with the house if visible from street view.
3) should have square wood balusters set no more that three inches apart if deck is
visible from the street and 4) should be kept to a minimum and subordinate to house
and yard in size and scale. This deck is located on the rear of the property but is very
visible from the street. Evergreen trees have been planted to screen the deck but will
the years that it will take to screen the deck is unknown. The deck appears to be
unstained and unpainted. It does not have wood railings and balusters.
Photo showing deck from the northeast.
Photo showing deck from the northwest.
8. Failure to plant proposed ivy screening to cover the cinder block wall.
Landscaping does not require a COA as listed in the guidelines, but as a part of the
COA process the applicant stated that the ivy would be planted. Therefore, the planting
of the ivy had become part of the application. Ivy was not planted in a timely manner.
9. Deletion of iron fencing from the cinderblock wall on the north side.
Co
The iron fencing part of the wall was totally omitted from the installation of the wall.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: This item has been a topic of the
Interstate 30 Task Force Meetings that are held once a month with the Mayor, City
Manager, and various departments heads together with members of the Downtown
Neighborhood Association and citizens of the MacArthur Park Historic District. The
public reaction to this application has not been favorable. It has been on their agenda
since January 2006.
Cover letter from applicant
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following items as
installed:
1. Footprint relocation of the outbuilding.
2. Relocation of the driveway.
9. Deletion of iron fencing on top of cinder block wall.
Staff recommends approval of the following items with modifications to the existing
structures:
5. Installation of outdoor security lighting on the north and south facades of the
original structure. Lighting is to be replaced with motion sensitive activation that are
be compatible with the guidelines. Applicant is to submit lighting fixtures to the
commission at the June 2006 hearing prior to installation.
6. All Cinder block walls shall be lowered to a level under six feet in height when
measured from the outside or the wall (the street view side or the view from
neighboring properties). Remove cinder blocks from the top of the doorway on the
north side of the property. Applicant is to submit plan for height reduction to the
commission at the June 2006 hearing prior to installation.
7. Deck on north fagade of Carriage House. Lower height of deck level to six feet
above grade (top of reduced wall height). Remove iron railing and replace with
wooden railings as specified by the guidelines. Add risers to steps.
8. Planting of ivy on north wall. Install ivy along the entirety of the wall with plants
that have runners of at least 24".
Staff recommends denial of the following items:
4. Installation of ceiling fans on the underside of the second story shed roof. Fans
are to be removed.
7
Stan) Cunningham. J (RLS#1 375)
0.
DONALDW; BROOKS, INC.
2MD ARCH MEET PIKE
HENSLEY, AR 72065
PHONE (501) BM-5336
I Timothy C. Cole (RLS#1399)
C�
?f. N T/; E E T
LEGALDESCRIPTIQN
TV!
[.at I., -Block 48- ORIGINAL C1
_nty, Arkansas.
g!
STATE 1r, AFor'
KANSAS
NO. 51
Date of Survey:
Nov e m b e r.; 12• 2 0.0 3.,
'4
Scale:
Property Address:
Ito 20':1
1301 Cumberland
W.
For Use &Behefltof:
.Bill Reddig-
4'
This Is to certify that the above desc4iai�6ai;�'surveyed ..`.t.he comely are marked as shown and
n..
vicinity .',',i
are In accord nceNvilh. SA506-
This certlQon Is for and lltnIt".ta t6 n.,
DONALD W. BROOKS, INC.
rE.S. (Stan) Cunningham, A �(RLS#1375) Donald W. Brooks (RLS$8)
20820ARCH STREET PIKE
— — — ——NENSLEY. AR72065
PHONE (501) 888-5336
}`Ir
LO i l
LL `� Q•'�
• Ir cr,
2._ rPL
o V
f✓ �
D7
zr' r' C�tpPy �
a, �Jl"1G��i
Fran>L o. z
_Y s
j M _-� 4 11►
a Z2 _ cn
l,Pf l,5'�Ior�h
i I _ _
CU Q13EI,,UND STMET
Timothy G. Cole (RLS01399)
C , f
a C&-�o
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1, Block 48, ORIGINAL.CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
Pulaski County, Arkansas.
..
'►,►►p 111111111%,",,
• AR1SAIvSAS
.
Date of Survey: November 12 2003
oQ gn"" o
Scale: 1" - 20'
Property Address: 1301 Cumberland*
=. ud; ;� o~'• ,
''•, a ...VV. V,
For Use & Benefit of: Bill Reddig
�'•.,� ,49►�.++``
��rrlrrul"1111►►+
This is to certffy that the above described land has been surveyed.
The comers are marked as shown and
are In accordance with axlstlng monuments in: the vicinity.
This cartIffeatlon Is for and limited to the parties ehown hereon.
61,
,s. (Stan) Cunningham, Jr, (RLS#1375)
II : • `2' i`
P, 1
❑ONA�:O•w:�•B.# PKS, INC.
i666 d-W Brooks (RLS#5)
2pg2 C ql'�T EET PIKE
ONE (6[i1 588-633B
Lo
°,:. K�
rrr; .1 A .� •
Is. /,/Drlh . ••
• f r..�?µ1Y�
kY; LEGAL' -DESCRIPTION
Lot 1, Block.48, ORIGINAL CITY-'J.•
%
Date of,.Survey: Navetrtt
Scale:
Property Address: 1314
For Use & $anafit•of:
This is to certify that the'abova deecrlbes
are in accordance with. exlsti.ng m ntiJrrie
This cartiflration Is for arpd I)mlted'f - e
Timothy C. Cole (RLS#1399) {
d •Z � ra
°' mil �•��,� . ' Y . f .�
Y �^ t f ]�
f�F..J.i f'7L
'sk' L oiint:y,* Arkansas.
t