Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2025-005 Staff Report w MinutesMay 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 NAME: 1420 Commerce Street - Certificate of Appropriateness LOCATION: 1420 Commerce Street, Little Rock, AR 72201 OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Gabe Holmstrom, CPA OZ Investments LLC 2102 Louisiana Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Figure 1. 1420 Commerce Street, Little Rock, 2025. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 2 AREA: 0.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing CURRENT ZONING: R4A – Low Density Residential A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The application seeks retroactive approval for the installation of two skylights, front porch handrail, rear parking pad, and front porch lighting. Additionally, the application proposes the installation of rear yard privacy fencing. B. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 1420 S. Commerce Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 8, Block 54, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas”. Context The subject property is the site of the structure at 1420 S. Commerce Street, a single-story wood frame dwelling constructed as a residence circa 1910 in the Folk Victorian style. This residence is the last of originally three Folk Victorian residences on the 1400 block of Commerce Street. The other two residences were demolished in c. 1970 and 1994. In 2012, the structure was determined to be in violation of the City of Little Rock minimum housing code and was identified as unsafe and vacant (see Attachment A, Figure 15). The property has been vacant and on the UNV list since 2012 and was removed Figure 2. 1420 S. Commerce located in MacArthur Park Historic District. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 3 from the list in 2025. The current property owner has applied for and been issued relevant permits for the restoration of the structure and is concurrently pursuing state and federal historic tax credits. The structure is Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District and the most recent Arkansas Architectural Resource Form (PU2966, 2007) is provided as Attachment D. Development History The residence is a single-story, wood frame structure supported by an enclosed brick pier foundation, enclosed with wood weatherboard siding, and topped by a pyramidal architectural shingle roof with front facing and side facing gables. A half front porch sits against the front facing gable, is supported by a parged brick foundation, concrete floor, and thin wood support columns with concrete steps leading up to the entrance. The porch columns and arched brackets are thought to be unoriginal to the structure and are considered a historic modification. The porch is covered by a low-pitched shed roof. The front entrance includes a nine-pane wood door flanked by full view sidelights. The residence displays primarily one-over-one wood windows with the addition of a six-over- one front gable wood window and a vinyl replacement window on the rear elevation. The structure contains simplified architectural detailing reflective of its folk house form. The residence is thought to have been constructed in c. 1910 and first appears in the 1913 series of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Little Rock as a frame dwelling with a wood shake roof, an open front porch covered by a non-combustible material—likely metal—an open back porch and closed back room covered by wood shake (Figure 3). Except for the replacement of roofing materials from wood shake and metal to composite shingles by 1939, the structure remained largely unaltered up to 1960 (Figures 4-6). Sometime between 1978 and 2011, the front porch support elements were altered, and railings were installed. Additionally, other non-historic modifications to the residence that occurred within this period include a full view replacement window at the rear of the north elevation, the addition of a skylight to the rear shed roof form and a rear wood deck (see Attachment A, Figure 12). Previous Action On July 4, 2024, a COC (HDC 2024-021) was issued to CPA OZ Investments LLC for exterior repairs, reroof, non-historic rear deck removal, and gutter installation. On November 4, 2016, a COC (HDC2016-042) was issued to Cleveland Thomas for siding repair. On December 16, 2014, a COC (HDC2014-033) was issued to Cleveland Thomas for siding, windows, roofing, soffits and fascia, and porch repairs. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 4 On February 11, 2011, a COC (HDC2011-001) was issued to Cleveland Thomas for siding, windows, roofing, soffits and fascia, and porch repairs. No additional previous actions were found on this site. Sanborn Maps & Aerials: Figure 3. 1420 Commerce, Sanborn Maps, 1913, Sheet 202. Figure 4. 1420 Commerce, Sanborn Maps, 1939, Sheet 46. Figure 6. 1420 Commerce, 1960 aerial image. Figure 5. 1420 Commerce, Sanborn Maps, 1950, Sheet 46. Figure 7. 1420 Commerce, 1998 aerial image. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 5 Historic Photographs: C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See site photos (Attachment A), application packet (Attachment B), and HDC2024-021 (Attachment C). The application packet includes cover letter, application, site plan, and product sheets and specifications, etc. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, staff received one (1) letter of opposition and thirteen (13) letters of support (Attachment E). All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were notified of the public hearing. Figure 8. 1420 Commerce front and south facades, looking northwest. Photo from 1978 Quapaw Quarter Architectural Survey. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 6 E. ANALYSIS: Skylight Installation The application requests the retroactive approval of the installation of two skylights, one rectangular-shaped skylight on the south-facing roof slope and one tubular skylight on the west-facing side gable roof slope. Both skylights are located on roof slopes that are minimally visible from public right-of-way. The south-facing skylight is aluminum and 21 inches x 45 ¾ inches with laminated low-E3 glass. The west-facing skylight is acrylic and 10 inches in diameter, with an elevated profile. The skylights bring light into the attic space that has been converted into a half- story loft. Staff finds the installation of the two skylights to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, specifically Guideline 4.26(9). The proposed roof alterations do not alter the front façade and do not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property. The skylights are installed on rear and secondary roof slopes and are minimally visible from the public right-of-way. The roof alterations are differentiated and compatible with the historic roof form and do not threaten the structure’s historic integrity. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standard 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.” Rear Privacy Fence The application proposes the installation of a solid, traditional wood privacy fence with vertical boards located primarily in the rear yard. The fence line on the south of the property is proposed to be six (6) feet tall and the remaining fence is proposed as four (4) feet tall. Starting at the rear northwest corner of the structure, the fence will follow the property line west to the rear alley, east around a rear parking area, east along the south property line and terminating at a point on the front of the south elevation side gable (see Attachment B, survey and site plan). Staff finds the installation of the rear yard privacy fence to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, specifically Guideline 9.19 (3), (5), and (6). The propose fence is May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 7 at or below the allowable height limit of 72 inches and meets location and design requirements. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically Standard 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.” Porch Light The application requests the retroactive approval of the installation of an exterior lighting fixture at the entryway of the front porch. Suspended in front of the front door, the fixture is a pendant light, traditional in design, and features beveled glass. Staff finds the installation of the exterior lighting fixture to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, specifically Guideline 9.22(1) and (3). No documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence exists of the previous historic porch lighting. The proposed new lighting is compatible with the age, style, and character of the building and is differentiated from the original historic materials and elements present. The lighting color and intensity is in accordance with the Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically Standard 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.” Porch Step Handrail The application requests the retroactive approval of the installation of one black, metal handrail on the right side of the front porch steps. The handrail is required by building code. Staff finds the installation of the porch step handrail to be consistent with Guideline 4.13(7), as the handrail is simple and subordinate in design and compatible with the historic attributes of the property. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically Standard 9: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 8 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.” Parking Area The application requests the retroactive approval of the installation of a rear concrete parking pad. The 18-foot by x 22-foot parking pad is located at the rear of the property abutting the 20-foot public alleyway and is visible from the alley way and E 15th Street. Staff finds the installation of the parking area to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, specifically Guideline 9.12. The parking area is located in the rear of the lot, accessed from the alley. As proposed with fencing, the parking area will be visibly screened. The parking area does not require new curb cuts and does not damage historic site features. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically Standard 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.” F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the application, as submitted. Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the commission. The applicant, Mr. Holmstrom, addressed the commission, stating that the restoration of the home required significant effort. He expressed pride in the completed work and satisfaction with the outcome. Commissioner Jones inquired whether the scope of work for which Mr. Holmstrom was retroactively seeking approval had been included in the items approved by the National Park Service as part of his Historic Tax Credit application. Mr. Holmstrom confirmed that he had pursued both state and federal tax credits and that all items for which he was seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness had been approved by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and the National Park Service, agency of the within the U.S. Department of the Interior. May 1, 2025 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: HDC2025-005 9 Ms. Donna Colon, owner of adjacent lots, addressed the commission with concerns that approval of the application would authorize construction of a fence on her property. Staff clarified that the COA application pertained solely to work on the applicant’s property at 1420 S. Commerce and that the commission lacks authority to approve work on any property other than the subject property. There was further discussion regarding property line disputes. Commissioner Aleman reiterated that the commission has no jurisdiction over property boundary determinations. Commissioner Aleman asked Staff if Mr. Holmstrom’s application was complete and met all requirements for commission review. Ratzlaff confirmed that it was complete and met all requirements for commission review. Ms. Colon expressed opposition to the application on the basis of property line disputes and asked whether the commission had received her submitted materials. Ratzlaff and Assistant City Attorney Gardner confirmed that her full submission was included in the staff report provided to the commission and made publicly available. In response to request by Ms. Colon for the commission to consider her survey, Ratzlaff noted that Ms. Colon did not have an application before the commission for review. Commissioner Aleman again clarified that the commission lacks authority to adjudicate property disputes. Commissioner Fennell advised Ms. Colon that any dispute regarding the survey prepared by Brooks Surveying, Inc. should be addressed through the appropriate legal channels. Tricia Bean, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association (“QQA”), addressed the commission and stated the QQA unequivocally supported the COA application submitted by Mr. Holmstrom and read aloud the letter of supported submitted to the commission on behalf of the QQA. Mr. Holmstrom was welcomed by Commission Aleman to address the commission again for rebuttal and he declined rebuttal. The commission then discussed the application. Commissioner Aleman stated that application, inclusive of the work that was originally performed outside of the issued administrative approval, was in keeping with the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeGraff. The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.