HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2010-017 Staff Report 10/11/2010DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
fly E' HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street
r�si �� Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
I DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
�o i COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: October 11, 2010
APPLICANT: Rene' Sparrow
ADDRESS: 1107 Cumberland Street
COA
REQUEST:
Installation of soffit, fascia, and gutter modifications
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1107 Cumberland
Street. The property's legal description is "Lot 2, Block
46 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built in 1910. The 2006
survey form states: "A craftsman style apartment building
with shallow roof slope, wide overhangs and grouped
windows with multiple panes. Front and rear porches
also have Craftsman details." It is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
17TH 16 . terH
This application is a result of an enforcement action. The `
Installation of soffit, fascia, and gutter modifications was I Location of Project
completed without a COA by the HDC. The fascia of the
building was covered in aluminum, the soffits covered in vinyl and seamless gutters with leaf
guard were installed. Rotted wood was removed.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On September 2, 2010, a COC was given to Rene' Sparrow for replacing trim boards around
windows and stucco repair.
On November 28, 1994, a COA was approved and issued to Lula Algee Richards for window
replacement on three sides of building, but not on front facade. The front facade was to be
restored to wood windows with 6/1-pane arrangement.
PROPOSAL:
The owners of the building, without prior approval of the HDC, modified the building as
described: 1) Aluminum fascia was installed over the existing fascia boards. 2) Vinyl soffit with
continuous venting was installed. The application reads "Removed rotted falling out wood."
Wood was replaced in the fascia, but Staff is unsure is any of the original soffit is still attached to
the building. 3) Guttering was removed and reinstalled with seamless gutters with leafguard.
The locations of the downspouts were changed from the front of the structure to the sides. The
lines in the "2010 front facade after modifications" photo are ghost lines of the gutters shown in
differing colors of paint. The building will be painted after the stucco repair work is finished.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation state:
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
This modification to the historic fabric of the building is not in compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior's Guidelines by the fact that historic material was removed and not replaced with
matching material or was covered with new material that is not appropriate to the structure.
This modification is also in violation of the COA process (work was executed without one) and
the failure to obtain a building permit.
That being said, the work that was performed is of good quality and is not readily perceivable to
the average citizen. The owner stated that the contractor was required to run the soffit board in
the same orientation as the original soffit bead board "to match" what was there with particular
care being taken at the corners. The ten rectangular soffit vents as shown in the 2006 south
facade photo have been replaced with perforated soffit panels. The new perforated panels are
shown in the photo below on the left but are difficult to see as the perforations in the panels are
designed ,not to be seen. This is a different look from before as the old vents were more readily
2
seen on the wide soffits. The original bead board is still in existence on the front porch second
floor ceiling as seen in the photo on the left below.
s r 7
` f •'�I����-+ �' �' - .-. •• err m ..r ra
�SIR
Newly installed vented soffits Previous vents in soffits from 2006 survey photo
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtain a retroactive building permit for work performed.
A]