Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2007-014 Staff Report Project Background And Description, Request: COA New Sigle Family Home 09/10/2007DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND i� I % DEVELOPMENT �; LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. September 10, 2007. DATE: September 10, 2007 APPLICANT: Tina and Andrew Boyd ADDRESS: 614 Rock Street COA New single family home REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 614 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 2 Charles and Tina Boyd Replat to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This application is for a new single family home to be built on a vacant lot. This action is also an item on the Planning Commission agenda of September 27, 2007 for a Revision to a PRD for a change to the rear setback of the structure and the addition of a swimming pool into the courtyard area. This location was reviewed by the HDC on July 14, 2005 when all three houses were reviewed and approved. The planning Commission approved the zoning on July 7, 2007 subject to HDC approval. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 7, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for three single family houses at 614 Rock, 618 Rock, and 617 Cumberland. �Pp;�a�e 'lea j g 614 Rock Street 618 Rock Street 624 Rock Street Proposed east elevation 620 Rock Street 610 Rock Street PROPOSAL: This infill house is located on a street with primarily residential uses on it. There are three two-story houses south of it and to the north is a one-story house that has been converted to an office use with a modern addition further to the north. On the other side of the street are one and two story houses that are a mix of residential and office uses. The feel of the street is still residential since there are no parking lots visible from Rock Street in this block. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape: The shape of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings. It is primarily deeper on the lot than wide, which is typical of the historic and new residential on that block face. The roof is a hip roof, which is used on surrounding buildings. 2 2. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is similar to other buildings on the street. The proposed height of the house is about 35' to the ridgeline and the garage is about 27'. The house at 618 Rock Street is a similar height to the proposed height. The proposed house is taller than 610 Rock but shorter than 620 and 624 Rock Street. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed roof is a hip roof with dormers on the east, south and north facades. The facade of the front of the dormers are in the same plane as the walls of the first floor. The roof will be covered in composition architectural asphalt shingles. The roof pitch on the bulk of the house is 12/12 with 12/8 on the dormers and 4/12 on the front porch. The garage has a pitch of 8/12 with gable ends and the ridgeline on the north south axis. 4. Orientation to the street: The primary entrance to the house is on Rock Street, as are the others on the block face. It does not have a driveway on Rock Street, only one property does (610 Rock). 5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays: The house will have single and two and three ganged windows. Most of the windows are of a proportion with the long axis being vertical. The exceptions are two windows on the south elevation near the rear of the house and a single window on the north elevation near the rear of the house. These windows are near the rear of the house and should not be considered incompatible. The porch is proposed to cover almost the entirety of the front facade. Two of three historic houses have a porch that is full width and another has been filled in. The new house to the south has a full width front porch. Some houses on that block face have center entrances and some are to the side. This proposed entrance is in the center. 6. Foundation height: The foundation height is to be up to 24" high. The other houses have a slightly higher foundation as measured by the number of steps that are into the houses. 7. Floor to ceiling height: The first floor has 10-foot ceilings and the second floor has 9 foot. 8. Porch height and depth: The porch depth is 8 feet deep and is one story tall. This is similar to the majority of porches in the block. 9. Material and material color (if brick —closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if framed —matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The exterior of the house and garage will be queen size brick with wood siding on soffits and fascia. The railing on the front porch will be brick with a masonry cap. The windowsills on the front of the house will have masonry sills while the remainder of the window sills will be of brick. 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: Trim around windows will be similar to the houses constructed at 618 Rock and 617 Cumberland. 3 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The proposed footprint of the primary building is 36'-0' wide and 69'-0" deep including front porch. The detached garage and upstairs apartment is 36'-0" by 24'-0" deep. All measurements do not include a brick veneer surface. There is a 7'-0" wide breezeway connecting them on the north side of the structures. The north setback is 5' and the south setback is 4' as approved previously by the PC and HDC. There is a proposed change in the location of the detached garage to shift it 3'-0" to the west. This will line up with the existing garage to the south at 618 Rock Street and will disturb less of the roots of the tree that is on the property line of 614 and 610 Rock Street. The setback from Rock Street is 11' as previously approved by the Planning Commission (PC) and the Historic District Commission (HDC). According to measurements from the GIS, the structures in that block (on both sides of the street) range from 10 to 27 feet front setback. The average is 18 feet. The front setback of 610 Rock Street (Answerfone) is approximately 10.5 feet, as estimated by counting bricks. The setback will be perceived to be the same as 610 Rock and will be two feet closer than 618 Rock. Overall, the setback of the new structure is compatible with the block face. This lot is zoned PRD — Planned Residential District. If this were R-4A zoning like the lots to the south, the setbacks would be 15 feet front setback and five feet side setbacks. If the zoning was UU like the lots to the north, the front setback and north side setbacks could be zero feet and the south setback would be 4 feet. The proposed setbacks on the front and sides are similar to the other built structures in the block face and are between the parameters set for the zoning districts to the north and south of the property. The previously approved garage was a three car and has been reduced to a two car garage with additional storage area and screened in porch. The gross area remains the same as before. Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate (are usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be avoided. Staff does not feel that this statement applies to this application. M Additional items to review: The application includes signage that is similar to the signage at Answerfone. It is to be located in the northeast corner of the lot. The sign is for the contracting business (Boyd Homes, Inc.) that is to be run out of the home. Lighting on the front porch is to be a wall mounted fixture on each side of the front door and one can recessed light near each end of the front porch for a total of four lights. The actual fixtures have not been selected as of the filing of the application. 'L Additional facts about the zoning application that is not subject Sign atAnswerfone to HDC review: • The PRD application also includes a small swimming pool to be located in the courtyard area. This is not subject to review by the HDC. There is a proposed set of fire escape stairs coming out of the upstairs apartment on the north side of the garage and exiting towards the west into the parking area. These will not be visible from the street and are not subject to review by the HDC. Staff believes this to be an appropriate infill development on this site. It has similar materials, textures, color, mass, height, scale, bulk, etc as the other structures in the area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were four residents of the area that had questions regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days 2. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit. 3. Submittal of final window design to Staff. If windows are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 4. Submittal of final lighting fixtures on front porch to Staff for Staff approval. 5. Submittal of final signage plan to Staff for Staff Approval. STAFF UPDATE: The meeting of September 10, 2007 did not meet due to lack of a quorum. The Applicant has asked to modify their application on Saturday, September 8, 2007 via email. The change is that the north facade of the building will be seven feet from the 5 property line instead of five feet. The setback approved by the planning commission is five feet. The original cover letter had items of solar collectors. The Guidelines state: Solar energy panels should be located on rear sections of the roof, behind dormers or gables or other areas not visible from the street. There is ample room for solar collectors on the south facing roof behind the bedroom #3 dormer or on the west facing roof. This would meet the intents of the guidelines. In the 2005 agenda item, fencing was reviewed in the Staff report but was not included in the motion. 624 and 620 Rock Street have iron fencing in the front of the structures along Rock Street. This fence is proposed to be along the sidewalk and return to the west along the side property lines toward the house. The fence would be between 30 and 36 inches tall, be painted black metal, and have finals on the end post and balusters. Staff believes this fence to be appropriate for this location. Iron fence detail STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days 2. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit. 3. Submittal of final window design to Staff. If windows are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 4. Submittal of final lighting fixtures on front porch to Staff for Staff approval. 5. Submittal of final signage plan to Staff for Staff Approval. 6. Submittal of all fencing designs to Staff. 7. Submittal of location and size of solar collectors for Staff approval prior to installation. COMMISSION ACTION: October 8. 2007 Kay Tatum stated for the record that she was recusing on this item since she is a property owner within 150 feet. She left the room during the hearing. Brian Minyard, Staff for the HDC, made a brief presentation about the item. It is a single family home to be built on a vacant lot. This is a revision to a COA. It was explained about the separate item to the Planning Commission. Revisions have been made tot the application in the Staff Update. on Mr. Minyard described the setbacks of the proposed house, the height, the front door and front porch, foundation height and ceiling height, etc are similar the existing houses in the area. He reviewed the Staff recommendation as stated in the Staff report. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if a COA had already been approved, why we are here. BM answered that the hearing if because the proposed house is different in size, shape and look of the approved and the proposed structure. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked about the drawings. It was explained that the drawing were sent in the September package, not in the October package. Elevations were unrolled at that time. The applicant Tina Boyd, of Boyd Homes, stated that she lives at 617 Cumberland now and that she got approved for a plan for the third home, the site of the present application. The plan has changed to add a second floor to facilitate a home office and security issues. They are trying to add a pool in the courtyard. She continued that there was no setback changes from the approved plan. The original plan approved is not as nice as this one is. It will be in keeping with the other homes on the street. This will be her seventh home to build since 2005 in downtown Little Rock. She has a proven track recode with the HDC and the CZDC and wants to please them. She has gotten rave reviews on her houses. Ms. Boyd would like to add solar collectors and would like to discuss options. She will have architectural shingles or maybe architectural slate shingles on the house. The windows will be Anderson or Peachtree windows of wood clad with no dividers. The outside cladding will be white or French vanilla color. They will be double hung or casement, probably with the back ones being casements and the front ones being double hung. She continued that the neighborhood is very diverse with 3 foot to 8-foot setbacks. Some of the structures need some maintenance attention. There are a variety of apartments, businesses, and a variety of square footages. There are many exceptions to the rules into he neighborhood. There are many exemptions in the past and she is not asking for more than the norm in the area. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the setbacks. Ms. Boyd replied that they are 5 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south. She is building to 7 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south to help preserve the trees. They are hackberry trees located near the north property line. She has talked to Pete Rausch (city arborist) and she trimmed the tress last winter in preparation. She has every intention of keep the trees. A concrete driveway lies to the north of the trees across the property line that is in the root zone. VA Commissioner Walls asked about the decision not to have muntions in the windows. Ms. Boyd responded that she preferred not to have the divided lites. Commissioner Wiedower commented that the sizes of the windows looked compatible with the historic stock in the area. She asked about the front door being twin doors and if she would be willing to change them. Ms. Boyd replied what ever the commission wants. There was a comment that there are houses with double doors into the area. Chairman Marshall Peters commented about the pitch on the gable roof. Commissioner Walls asked what material were the columns made of. Ms. Boyd replied that they were wood columns. She continued that the house would have masonry sills on the first floor windowsills and brick sills on the second floor. A brick soldier course will be on all windows on the headers. Chairman Peters asked if there were citizens in support of the application. Ms. Boyd stated that she had a letter from 619 Rock Street in support of the application, David Garner, and Alice Lightle spoke in support at the Planning Commission hearing. She provided a copy of the letter to Staff. Chairman Peters asked if there were citizens in opposition to the application. Conner Limerick spoke in opposition to the application. He owns the property to the north. He appreciates the Boyd's and the new downtown development. He has a list of people in opposition to the proposal and provided a copy to Staff. He asked why he was being ignored on the issue of the size and height of the structure. The original application was for a one-story house and now it is a one and one half or two story. He currently owns an 1833 cottage and has been there 35 years. He likes being downtown. He objects to the mass of the brickwork on the front porch. He commented that his cottage would disappear with the mass of the next -door structure. He related his plight to the one at Cantrell and Spruce. The mass of the proposed structure will make his structure disappear from view. He stated that the 3000 sf one-story house was okay. The problem is of his structure disappearing from view. His ground level and therefore his structure is four feet lower than hers. He also worries about the tree's survival. His driveway was built a long time ago and does not have as much impact on the tree as her new house would. He wants her to go back to the one story house. Nancy Rennels, lives at 619 Rock, and spoke in opposition to the application. She has comments or question on the porch. Mr. Minyard explained that the new application with its differences were on the table for review at this hearing. She feels that the porch is very solid and bulky. She commented that when the previous work was done on Rock Street, that there was no area for construction traffic. Anne Limerick spoke in opposition to the application. She stated the mass was too big for the size of the lot. She stated that houses are not as tight on other areas of the street and that the house will appear to be huge, a mcmansion. She added that there was more green space in between the existing houses on the street. She said that there were eight building on the block and five out of the eight property owners object. Of the three that do not object, one is for sale, and another was on the market. She added that the Ms. Boyd is a customer of the antique brick man, who wrote a letter of support for the application. She continued to speak of the neighbors that objected to the proposed house. She did state that a house is better than an empty lot. Mr. Minyard commented that during the Planning Commission hearing, the Fire Department reviews and comments on all applications. Mr. Limerick commented that the fire escape that was approved was wood. Mr. Minyard commented that it would have to meet fire codes. John Tatum, a property owner at 624 Rock, Street spoke in opposition to the application. He commented that he was not notified on this. He stated the mass was too big and that the setbacks vary in that area. He commented about the difficulty of doing repairs on the sides of the houses with the small setbacks and fences. Elise Terry of DDF Consulting spoke in opposition to the application representing the owners of DDF. She stated they appreciated the building, but with buildings becoming too close together, a security issues arises. No vegetation can grow in between the houses. She said the house was too large and that they want to be a good neighbor. She commented on the green space between the existing houses. Katherine Matthews spoke in opposition to the application. She is in agreement with the others. She asked would there be any grass in the front of the house. Don Terry with DDF Consulting stated that he was in opposition to the application. Ms. Boyd responded to the questions and comments posed by the citizens. She stated that she had talked with Tommy Braswell. She quoted that he purchased his house into the 250 range and it is on the market for 439 thousand. She stated that increased property values are not a reason to support a project, but are a good indication that people are appreciating what we are doing. She stated that she buys half of her brick from Acme Brick and does not know Mr. Garner personally. On the issue of the small cottage disappearing, she stated that his porch is closer to the street than hers is proposed to be. She feels that his mass will be lost from view. She continued that there would be 17 feet between her house and the structure to the north. This is a good separation. E She currently has approval for a house on the a lot. It has a larger footprint on the site than the proposed one. The front setback on the new version will be further back than the original one and further back than the porch to the north. The staging area for the construction will be in the rear of the house. The sidewalk will be blocked off in the front and she admitted it would be tight. She added that there are many 3000 sf houses downtown. She said that she would not build a mcmansion. The lot is not significantly smaller than other lots downtown. It was not the look that she desired. Many of the houses in the area are closer than these. It is part of the charm of being downtown. The wood fire escape from the rear unit is similar to the wood fire escapes in other parts of downtown. She will adhere to what the building codes on that issue. She is disappointed that the neighbors are not is support of this application. The landscaping in the front of this house will be similar to the landscaping at 618 Cumberland There will be lots of grass into the front with beds. Mr. Tatum commented that he did not get a certified letter about this application. She commented that a new property owner does not always show up on the title search. Ms. Boyd continued that she was not asking to do anything that everyone else has not been done before. She does not put vegetation between the houses; instead, she puts pea gravel much. The fences will prevent transient traffic. She stated that the transient traffic has been reduced since the fences went up. Commissioner Wiedower asked if there are windows on the south side of the Answer Fone building and how wide the driveway was. The answer was yes to the windows and the driveway was "narrow." The drive is wide enough to use. Mr. Limerick commented that he had to set brick addition area back. Commissioner Wiedower commented that it is different when change comes to a neighborhood. She continued that she noticed the lot was terraced on the lot next door, so the new structure will appear more massive than it actually is. Commissioner Wiedower discussed the width and height of the proposed and existing structure. Ms. Boyd commented that the approved and proposed houses are the same width. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the brick columns would tend to blend into the wall. The sizes of the columns are more Craftsman size and some porches were more modest. Ms. Boyd stated she was not opposed to changing the look of the porch. She commented that her husband likes the privacy of the front porch. Commissioner Wiedower commented on the brick railing of the porch. Commissioner Walls commented on the proposed side setbacks. Mr. Minyard commented that he did not have that answer. He said that it would be similar to the other existing houses. Commissioner Walls asked to clarify if the application was 10 asking for a 4-foot and a seven -foot setback on the home. He asked what the typical setback was. Ms. Boyd said it was five feet. Commissioner Walls commented that he did not understand the concern if the proposed side setbacks were similar to the others in the area. Chairman Peters commented on his current house and the setbacks and height. Mr. Limerick talked about the distance between the houses on both side of the street. He stated the side setback was generally 8-9 feet apart from houses on the southern most three structures. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the three houses have front facing second or third floor gable. She continued that the one and one half story house would appear less of a mass. Mr. Minyard added that the photos in the report were all taken from the sidewalk across the street with the same zoom. They could be used as a gage for the distance between the houses. He also mentioned that there was a burned house that was never built back and that the Braswell's own two lots. Two additional houses could be on that side of the street, thus reducing the side setbacks that are there now. The rhythm is not there since the two houses are not there. He continued that zoning and the five-foot setback came into being in 1939. With knowing the setbacks as discussed today, Staff would still argue that the setbacks proposed are compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Walls stated that he was still having a hard time understanding the scale issue concerns of the citizens. Commissioner Wiedower understands the concerns of Answerfone. The trees in the front tend to make the building disappear. It is fortunate to have a driveway on that side of the building that adds visibility. Commissioner Walls said that mass is more at play than the setback issues. Commissioner Wiedower appalled by what is happening into he Heights and other areas. The ground height, by way of the terraces, is historic. If the site were excavated, the mass would be less dominating. On the other hand, that takes away from the historic nature of the area. Ms. Boyd answered that they could not excavate the site to lower the elevation. Mr. Limerick said it the one story house previously approved was more acceptable than the proposed story and a half. He asked if she would put the mass of the house on the back instead of the front. Chairman Peters asked if Ms. Boyd was amenable to revising the front porch. She stated that maybe putting in wood columns and a wood handrail. Chairman Peters restated what he thought was being said that the porch was a lot of mass and it might be better with a less massive design. Commissioner Walls commented that there was not anything wrong with that style, and that any change would be for the neighbors. He understands the concern of the heft of the porch. The brick does not lighten the impact 11 of the porch. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did like the fact that the applicant did not attempt to "Walt Disney" the houses. Chairman Peters stated that he did not personally have a problem with the massiveness of the front porch. Commissioner Wiedower stated that brick or stone always looks more massive but that probably does not satisfy the neighborhood. Commissioner Walls said that the mass could be lessened with gables being different materials; a different pitch on the gables versus the body of the roof might make it better. Chairman Peters asked for a motion. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the application as proposed with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and one recusal (Tatum). Staff informed the commission and the public that this item was proceeding to the Board of Directors for the Zoning Request. They were informed that is was going to the Board on Tuesday, November 8, 2007. 12 BOYD HOME, Ina- LETTER OF APPL)CATION PRMIUM FOR 614 RUCK STREET - CERTIREATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Changes to the proposed residence at 914 Rack Street are submitted for review. The location is within the little Rock Historic District - MacArthur Park. Changes: I. Request for revisions to the foatpriat and design of the home. 2. Request for small sign similar to the Answerfone sign to advertise my business (Boyd Homes, Inc) to be located an the north side of the access sidewalk 3. Request for small pan] to be added in the courtyard. Paul is not visible from street or parking areas. The house will be brick and compatible to surrounding structures in foundation height, roof height and pitch, and exterior appaarance. Extensive landscaping will he done to ensure the property conforms to surrounding landscape within two years of construction. This location is zoned as R-4 but the Little Ruck Cade allows R-5 Urban Residential in this area. A Planned Zoning Development change request (PD-R, Z-78B Revision) has been submitted to the subdivision committee to allow for these changes. The change will be in keeping with surrounding property. No changes to lot size are requested. Surrounding property south of the proposed humps includes two new. two story homes completed in 2006,two residential style homes (two stories) that have been converted to apartments, one apartment above a 3 car garage, and two four-plex apartments that are two stories. North of the proposed homes are the one story Answerfone building. a multi -unit two story apartment complex and a paved parking lot. LEGAL DESCRIFM* The legal description of the lot is Lot 2, CHARLES AND TINA BOYD REPIAT of the South half of Lot 4 and the North half of Lot S. Block 41 and the West 10 feet of alley elosad by Ordinance No.17.745 lying next to lots, and the North half of Lut 8 and all of Lot 9, Black 41 and the east 10 Feet of alley closed by Ordinance No.12,745 lying next to huts, Original City of Little Rock Pulaski County, Arkansas. 914 Rack Street Facing Rock Street and nearest to Answerf one building -3100 square feet 4 Bedrooms 3.5 Baths 2 Story structure with foundation and roof height similar to 618 Rack Street Metal fence in front lawn Pool in private courtyard 2 Car detached garage with covered walkway (3 car was previously approved) Garage with opertmerit above (approved in previous application) AAaartment (rm chm4Ps propmd frarn arinlnal Certificate of Approval request) Above the garage - -909 square feet I Bedroom with walk-in closet I Bath Kitchenette Fire escape stairs (painted wood) to be located on the north side within the 5' satback Tina & Andrew Boo,1715 Manna Avenue, Ltte Rock, Arkansas, 722112, W1404-CM9 Cover Letter from Applicant 13 BOYD HOME, Inc— LETTER OF APPLICATION SITE PLAN - DETAILS Minor changes to the house footprint are planned, See site plan far mare detail. Extensive landscaping in the front lawns and the private courtyard is planned. Landscape plants will be purchased at a sae that will mature in 2-3 years. The courtyard between the house and garage will be fenced with a six foot privacy wood fence. Every attempt will be made to save all of the trees on the northern edge of the property, Peter Rausch with the City of Little Rack Urban Forestry department has been contacted. A Y change in rear setback has been requested with the City of little Rork in order to allow mare space for trap roots. A security light will be installed on the exterior of the garage directing light an the garage openings. The light will automatically turn on 9 movement is detected near the garage doors. Other exterior lighting wig be similar to surrounding houses in look and will be approved with Staff prior to purchase. A light at each front door and back door is planned. Garbage Gans and recyrle bins will be stared in the garage and not visible from the street except on collection day MATERIALS AND FEATURES _ COMMON TD ALL HMO Exterior (mot were previously approved) Brick Masonry window stools an front (see picture) Wood Saffit/Fascia Woad double -hung and/or casement windows Wood front doer - double Fiberglass insulated doors an rear entrances Architectural shingles Extensive landscaping in front Private courtyard between garage and house with pool and extensive landscaping Irrigation system: front, sides, and courtyard Detached garage with covered breezeway between house and garage Wood fence around courtyard and private drive Private drive shared by all three houses Primary Buildings: The principal house structure will have the largest footprint and be the tallest structure on the lot The foundation and ceiling heights will match neighboring structures. specifically 618 Rock Street. Outbuilding Two Story First Floor Ceiling Height - ID' Second Fluor Ceiling Height - 9' Foundation Height - up to 24" Garage Located at rear of lot Foundation Height - minimum Ceiling Height - 9' Apartment above with 9' rpilings Tlna & Andrew Boyd,1715 Magnoaa Avenue, Liale Rock, A rkm sas, 72MZ 501-E4j41359 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 14 BOYO HOME, Ino- LETTER OF APPLICATION Architectural Details: Shingles - Composition Architectural Style Roof Pitch — 6/12 minimum Eave —12" overhang Eave Trim —Wood Awnings and Canopies Optional metal awing on bark courtyard door of main structure. Brickwork Queen size brick [rum Antique Brick (color/style to be Cattnn Row), with masonry windowsills on front of houses using natural color mortar. Chimneys: None Curb Cuts: Not applicable Decks Doors Fans: Fences Woad fire escape far apartment abave the garage to be painted Front Door — Wood Rear and Side Doors — Fiberglass or metal In breezeway and on front parch (no lights attached to fan). tight to be attached close to ceiling and minimally visible from the street. Front yard — 3 foot metal decorative fence (design to he approved by Staff prior to installation). Courtyard G' Wood privacy fence. Parking area — G' Woad privacy fence Driveway — Wood privacy fence Foundations: Olock with brick veneer — all houses Foundation Height — up to 24" Foundation height will match neighboring structures (will be between height of 818 Rack and 610 Rack). Garbage Collectors To be kept in garage. Gutters/Boxed: Sita.-fabricated aluminum gutters. Hanging Gutters/Downspouts: Site -fabricated aluminum gutters/dawnspouts to be placed on sides or rear of home. Tina & Andrew Boyd,1715 Magoona Avenue; Lime Rock, Arkansas, 72202,501-E04.4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 15 BOYD HOME, Inc --LETTER OF APPLICATION Landscaping: -COA not required and plan is not complete at this time. Landscape will be similar to the home at GI7 Cumberland Street which was completed earlier in 2006. -Trees on north side of property to remain unless diseased. Light Fixtures -Type/Style Unknown - front fixtures to be approved by Commission staff prior to installation. -Front Porch: arm fixture on either side of the front door, two recessed can lights. -Courtyard: Two small directional spotlights at garage entry door and at rear door of home. Law voltage landscape lighting around pool area (not to be directed at another home) -Garage: One motion detector light. Mecharkal Systems: HVAC - units to be placed an side of home near the courtyard and will be shielded with evergreen landscape plants. Roof Penetrations - as required. Parking Area: -Existing ribbon driveway from Cumberland Street provides access to the garage parking -Driveway and parking area to be smooth concrete -Parking area to include wood privacy fence on north edges. Pwshew. Columns -Brick and wood Porch surface - concrete Parch ceiling -wood, bead -board Rails - Brick Steps - concrete Public right-of-way impravements: Not applicable to this project Retainer Walls: Not applicable to this project. Roof: Shingles - Composition Architeetural Style (asphalt) Eave Trim - wood Satellita Dishes Not applicable. Screens: Not applicable to this project. Shutters - Not applicable to this project. Tina & Andmw Boyd,1715 Magnob Averse, LdBe Rod*, kk2nsas,72M, 501-8044349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 16 BOYD HOME, Ino- LETTER OF APPLICATION Sidewalks: To extend from front steps to existing sidewalk — at least 24" width. Steps to be similar to existing concrete steps an Rock Street. The existing steps can not be worked into the landscape and layout without creating access problems, and are rmt safe far fuhrre use. They will be removed with Commission approval. Siding: Signs: Wood where needed. Request a small business sign for Boyd Homes. Inc similar to Answerfone sign. To he located on the north side of front entry sidewalk. Skylights: Two skylights to be located in upstairs room at the rear of the house, Neither will be visible from Rock Street or Cumberland Street or from adjacent homes. Solar Collectors: Yes, if approved, Request discussion an this issue. StBlrcBs r Fire escape stairs for the garage apartment to be located an the north side. Stairs to be built at wood and painted to match other house trim. Stairs will nut be visible from Rock Street (and probably not from Cumberland Street). Stabs will end at m irner of garage and will be minimally visible from the aeres&/utility easement Stairs will be built in the 5' setback Steps: Steps to be similar to existing concrete steps an Rock Street The existing steps can not be worked into the landscape and layout without creating access problems, and are not safe for future use. They will be removed with Commission approval. Windows Double -hung or easement wood with vinyl cladding. Tlna & Andrew Boyd,1715 Magnona Avenue, Liffle Rock, Arkansas, 72202, 501-804.4349 Cover Letter from Applicant continued 17 �CEIvD aF -� DEPARTNENT OF PLANN ti 7 DEVELOPbLENT {� LITTLE ROCK 723 West Markham Street I'IISTORIC t } t Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-1790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 CONTMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 13 07 I L Date of Public Hearing: l Vday of f 200-Z-at 5' °b P.M. 2. Address of Property: (V i L( Zac -_ �} ' 3. Legal Description of Property: 45ee 4. Property pwner INn e. Address, Phonc, Fax)- C 5. Owner's Agent: (Phone/Pax/E-mail) 6. Project Description (a:lditionel pn ea may be added): 2ppTu"'J CLA [u' )e, -C.d 4 r yy-'J V0"'Q -�i7rn2 i5 �1 rtru.. I4r rra 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: ao 8. Zoning Classification: r�u A\ Is the proposed change a permitted use? es No 9. Signature of Ownerot-Agent; � . �_ Me uwaerw•al" u7hortte any Agenr or person reN •beg the ostn er ar the public hearusg). VOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc')from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Conunission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff, Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑ Denied [] NVithdrawn Approved Approved with Conditions See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Developrneni 723 Nest Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application IN DONALD W. BROOKS, INC Proposed Site Plan � REOAAMSURVEYOR 614 Rock Street HARCH tv. so PIKE Revision of PDR File h$o. 7..-7879 PHONE (M) M4U4 l -- 11 RID, This 1<ro1>erty 1.s not. 6id.in the 100 year flood — , plain a4 per Panel I a�ry� g+; ! 107 .for Little Rork, AR. C:ominiinity-l'anel, #0501810107 E, dated. October 19, 2001 in Zone X' '!J1 2 v �7;fiiLll __ z ` ?R1v nc�� -- FEOCE +fJ 37,VV-A&Z' C7 N i NMES: i I. Sign to be allowed. Must comply with }. MacArthur Paris Historic Cotrzmission J Guideline,. 2. TO he allowed in 5' sua=k on north side. t lire Cx *n for up-vinwnt & concrete cr (] %z wood patio. 'J 1 3- LNXM:TY4 "M81 fence ill front of ltolrte. '' 41� 20' ® �` lee 4- Porch to 32' wide and V deep. i q:.r r� Y F X 5. Proposed pool Area 22,x2o' in courzyard. Pool is not expected to be more than QCY w "— — Tt e l3'K16'. tat exact placemcnI wit, be = determined during cottsintcrion. ti 6. Mattes CO be set at 5' xtback on the north tick. - / 37 4A X ? 5 O 7. HotneWW K=P to 21lowab!e width of 37.69, ("isting it:117acks allow 37.69') 2» CA Z 4f-y AZ A GE 4 S. Rear of lintue to ba set at 62' from f'ra:zt of rAPA k_T # j ltv %c or 73' from front or porch. 4 9. Move rear setback 3 fwt into acco utifity .t. I 45 exxe•+ztem: •- wr �r •aligns with adjacent gar4W - 5J -allows morn rtwrn for wee roots in courtyard y F -Sam-re Is only 2.0ar iamesd ofallowed 3•car } M O Y .W.Vlltl] Ti• t- l.c t 2 , CHARLIES AND T INA BOYD REPL T of t btcj iS!; of t.n r 141 .. t. r, r -A — ., _ _. - Partial survey/ site plan 1 I!t� 19 Page 1 of l Minyard, Brian From: BoydHomeslnc [boydhomesinc@sbeglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 3:53 PM To: Conner@answerfone.com Cc: James, Donna; Minyard, Brian Subject: (We are revising) Tina and Andrew Boyd - 614 Rock Street Mr. Limerick: (I have sent a similar letter to Mr. Dennis) I am responding to your letter of concern about our application for 614 Rock Street. I certainly understand your concerns and want to assure you that we have the best interests of the neighborhood at heart. If you had called me. I would have gladly discussed this with you and made changes as needed. 1 think some of this has been a miscommunication and some of it is corrected by changing the application. We live here and will continue to be reighbors. We also want to save every tree that we can an the lot. In response to your and Mr. Dennis' concerns, I have changed the application. Please see the attached site plan and letter of application which I have provided to Donna Jaynes. City of Little Rock, Planning and Development, I have addressed all of your concerns except one, which is that the house will be 1.5 stories. I have not changed the house plan because I believe this plan to be more in keeping with the area and will blend into the surrounding houses in appearance. It also leas much more street appeal than the original house that I had planned for this lot. Specific to your concerns: 1. Our front porch will start almost Exactly where the porch for Answerfone starts. The II' setback was approved in 2005. We are not proposing a change to the building setback. This should be acceptable. 2. We have changed the north side of the house to be 7' from the property line, instead of at the 5' setback. The side setbacks were also approved in 2005. We are not proposing a change to those setbacks. 3. We are the same distance from your Answerfone structure now as in the original plan. The addition of fencing has significantly cut down on foot traffic and crime in the area- You and I have discussed this and you agreed that the fencing has helped. 4. The original house plan called for 29n0 square feet on one floor. The new house plan is -3000 square feet with 15 stories and is much more in keeping with the other homes on the block. The footprint of the newhome is SMALLER than the footprint of the original planned home. Answerfone is the only one story home on the block. All of the ether homes on the block are two stories and closer to 3000 square feet. The home should not overwhelm the other homes on the block and is similar in site and shape. I called Mr. Rausch last fall to give me guidelines to use during construction. I will use every guidelins that he provided and will do everything possible keep these trees alive. I have every interest in doing so. I have already had the trees trimmed per his specifications, and will continua to monitor them throughout construction Andrew. Isabella and I will be Iivirg in this house for years to come, and we want to be good neighbors. The appraised value of the homes substantiates that our development has added significant value. to the. area. The development's landscape shows that we are committed to providing the neighbors with a beautiful property to wow. We have not requested setbacks from those approved in 2005, and we have addressed most of your concerns. It is my hope that you will contact Donna James and withdraw your concerns, as we have filed an amended plat plan. All we are really asking for is the pool. Sincerely. Tine Boyd Boyd Homes, Inc President and Home -owner Cc: Brian Minyard, Randy Dennis. Donna James Please call me if you have any additional questimts, (501-804.4349) 9/ 10/2007 Revised Cover Letter from Applicant 20 HUM 1,PS. MC'TA'- /// Gad rie,. This pro in the 1 FEacc plain as ZZ-A g 107 for �i AR. Com #0501810 1.44.E October 3-4 &'L Zone X. U v d v a I Aa , son W f� 3 'Poo L AtzEA 'S' j v ExAaE APART MEa 90 Wcem'6 2/ IT gr lDl ��e-�CEC`I ZOr/�1CG��S.�,a'ia4'l1'7G�1�.. CRIPTION 47, 09' ARLES AND TINA BOXD REPLAT of the Sk of. Lot 4 and Revised Partial survey/ site plan 21