Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report with MinutesApril 3, 2025 Historic District Commission IV Roll Call DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1 334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.Iittlerock.gov LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD Thursday, April 3, 2025, 4:00 p.m. Board Room, Little Rock City Hall, 500 W. Markham Members Present: Christina Aleman, Chair Amber Jones, Vice Chair Tom Fennell Dr. Thomas DeGraff III Chase Waters Members Absent: Scott Green Diane Thomas -Holliday Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff Raeanne Gardner Cameron Bowden Finding a Quorum A quorum was present being five (5) in number. Citizen Communication Ms. Donna Colon addressed the commission. Ms. Colon expressed concern regarding HDC2025-005 and enforcement action regarding the property at 1420 Commerce Street. The item was deferred to the May 1st meeting due to the applicant providing the incorrect hearing date in the public notice letter. Minutes None 1 April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission V M IM National Register Nominations None Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None New Certificates of Appropriateness 1. HDC2025-004 Joe Tollett 515 Rock Street Rehabilitation, Site Improvements, Front Porch Alterations and Reconstruction 2. HDC2025-005 CPA OZ Investments LLC 1420 S. Commerce Street Skylights, Front Porch Alterations, Fencing Deferred to May 1st, 2025 meeting due to failure to meet public notice requirements 3. HDC2025-006 First Lutheran Church 700 S. Rock Street Rehabilitation, Site Improvements, Rear Two -Story Enclosed Porch Alteration 0) 'I �11f Iv A04 PFr"c— ��� & ION a �- « � lion a-1:3 �k 1 � ��� , , April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission residence in 1867. The structure is Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District and the most recent Arkansas Architectural Resource Form (PU2977, 2007) is provided as Attachment C. Development History The Narkinsky House is supported by a brick masonry pier foundation and features a rectangular plan covered by composite shingle, low-pitched hipped roof with gable dormers on the front and side elevations. The home features elaborate Italianate architectural detailing for a one-story dwelling, such as decorative eave brackets, tall, narrow six -over -six wood windows with segmental arches, and a central wood frame porch with Doric columns. The home's historic architectural detail are well documented through photographs of the Narkinsky family, c. 1917-1942 (Attachment D). The Narkinsky's were a Jewish family who lived in the structure during the early 20' century. The structure is first depicted in the 1897 Sanborn map as a single -story frame dwelling with a central, three-quarter front porch covered by non-combustible roofing, likely metal, and a rear Ell wing, and rear porch covered by wood shake roofing (Figure 3). By 1913, the structure's rear wing and porch were removed, an addition was constructed, and the front porch roof was covered with composite shingles (Figure 4). A rear room and stoop were constructed at the rear of the addition and was covered by a wood shake roof. By 1939, the rear stoop was enclosed and all roofing material was composite shingle (Figure 5). Sometime between 1978 and 1987, the structure's front porch floor and foundation was modified sometime between 1978 and 1987 with the original brick masonry pierfoundation and wood floor being replaced with a solid brickfoundation and brick floor (Figure 6). Previous Action On February 12, 2025, a COC (HDC2025-002) was issued to Joe Tollet for window repairs and HVAC unit replacement. On July 18, 2024, a COC (HDC2024-023) was issued to Joe Toilet for gutter installation along the rear enclosed porch. On May 3, 2024, a COC (HDC2024-012) was issued to Joe Tollett for the installation of a ridge vent. On May 29, 2025, a COC (HDC2024-007) was issued to Joe Tollett for the removal of non - historic signage, removal of a handicap ramp on the front facade, and siding repair. 9 April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission On June 15, 2023, a COC (HDC2023-015) was issued to Jean Madden and Camellia Walker for porch repair, wood siding and trim board repair, wood soffit, fascia, and bracket repair, painting, and roofing repair. On April 4, 1991, a COA (HDC1991-001) was issued to Jean Madden for the renovation and repair to front porch and an addition of a handicap ramp. On September 3, 1987, a COA (HDC1987-003) was issued to Jean Madden for restoration of a front porch. ! y J nl n x x A !1 i f Figure 3. 515 Rock Street, 1987, Sanborn Map, Little RocFigure 4. 515 Rock Street, 1913, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. k. Figure 5. 515 Rock Street, 1939, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. site. Sanborn Maps: C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: No previous actions were found on this Figure 6. 515 Rock Street, 1950, Sanborn Map, Little Rock. See site photos (Attachment A) and application packet (Attachment B). The application packet includes cover letter, application, site plan, architectural illustration, and product sheets and specifications. Historical photographs of the site are found in Attachment D. April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 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. E. ANALYSIS: Pier Foundation Enclosure, Crawl Space Vents and Doors The application proposes removing the existing painted plywood boards and enclosing the brick masonry pierfoundation with salvaged brick, set back by 2 inches. Additionally, the proposal includes installing cast iron crawl space vents and three smooth steel crawl space doors. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines, specifically Guideline 4.3 (4). The proposal uses appropriate infill material and sets the new material back a few inches to differentiate between the historic pier system and the new infill material. The crawl space vents and doors will be installed into the infill brick and the products are compatible and subordinate to the historic feature. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 9: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." Front Porch Reconstruction The application proposes several improvements and repairs to the front porch. These include installing new flashing and metal roofing, removing the non -historic, existing foundation (Figure 7), and reconstructing the pier and beam foundation displayed in the Narkinsky family photographs (Attachment D). The porch foundation will have a tongue -and -groove floor and foundation openings will be covered in lattice. The front steps will be rebuilt using brick, wood, or concrete, and black handrails will be added to meet code requirements. The existing columns will be repositioned to align with the original foundation location and roof elements. Missing eave brackets will be reconstructed, and the fascia will be repaired and rebuilt as needed, based on physical evidence of the original fascia found in the structure's attic (Figure 17, 18). The existing porch light will be replaced (Figure 16), and the porch ceilingwill undergo plaster repair (Figure 7 April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission 13, 14). Lastly, the non -original horizontal support beams attaching the columns to the front fagade wall will be removed (Figure 15). Staff finds the reconstruction of missing or altered architectural elements based on physical and pictorial evidence (Attachment D) to be consistent with Guideline 4.13(4). The proposed reconstruction ofthe missing architectural elements —porch foundation, metal roofing, flooring, column realignment, eave brackets, fascia — are supported bythe Narkinskyfamily photos, the Sanborn maps, and the physical evidence assessed on site. Additionally, the proposed porch handrail is consistent with Guideline 4.13(7) and is simple and subordinate in design and compatible with the historic attributes of the property. Staff finds wood to be the most compatible material for the reconstruction of the front steps, based on pictorial evidence. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence." Porch Column Base Substitute Material The application proposed to replace the existing front porch wood column bases with fiber -reinforced polymer to reduce the risk of rot. Fiberglass and the related Fiber Reinforced Polymers (collectively FRP) are synthetic materials that can be molded into decorative shapes and details. They are lightweight and are often used as a substitute for decorative wood or masonry elements. More information regarding FRP can be found on page 56 of the Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposal to be inconsistent with the Design Guidelines. Guideline 3.6(3) discourages the removal of architectural features that are in good condition and Guideline 4.13(1) encourages the replacement of historic materials too deteriorated to repair with in kind materials. Staff finds that the requested substitute material is not inappropriate for this use if replacement was necessary, however the condition of the column bases has not deteriorated to the extent that they cannot be repaired through ordinary maintenance. Staff finds the proposal is inconsistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual N April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of miss ingfeatures shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence." Realignment of Side Elevation Baseboards The application proposes realigning the exterior, horizontal trim boards on the historic rear addition with the trim boards of the original structure (Figure 9,12). The addition was constructed sometime between 1897 and 1913 and is considered to be historic. The misaligned trim boards showcase the expansion of the dwelling to accommodate the occupants and is historic in its own right (Attachment D). Staff finds the realignment of the side elevation baseboards to be inconsistent with Guideline 4.8. The proposal alters an existing historic feature and is not substantiated by documentation. Staff finds the proposal is inconsistent with SOI Standards, specifically standard 4: "Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." Reconstruction of Chimneys The application proposes to reconstruct two original chimneys that were once prominent to the exterior: one near the front of the structure along the north elevation and one near the rear of the structure along the south elevation, see front fagade illustration in Attachment B. The two chimneys are visible in historic photographs (Figure x and x), were removed by 1978, and the interior elements remain beneath the roofline. Staff finds the reconstruction of the two prominent chimneys consistent with Guideline 4.26. The proposed reconstruction of the chimneys are supported by the Narkinsky family photos and the physical evidence assessed on site. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence." I] April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission Rear Porch Step Replacement The application proposes replacing the rear porch steps with brick and the installation of a handrail (Figure 10). The existing wood steps are deteriorated and require replacement. As currently constructed, the steps and risers do not meet code. The rear of the structure, inclusive of the steps, is visible from the public alley. Staff finds the replacement of the rear steps to be necessary and finds the proposed material to be inconsistent with Guideline 4.13 (1). Staff finds that brick steps may appear as conjecture and that concrete steps would be more appropriate. The rear steps are not protected by a covering, were humbly constructed, and are located on the rear fagade. Concrete is a more compatible replacement as it is simple in design and affords durability. Additionally, the proposed porch handrail is consistent with Guideline 4.13(7) and is simple and subordinate in design and compatible with the historic attributes of the property. Staff finds the proposal is mostly consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the newfeature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and othervisual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missingfeatures shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence." Sidewalk Replacement The application proposes replacingthe concrete segment of the public sidewalkforthe length of the propertywith brick masonry based on evidence from historic photographs (Attachment D). The bricks will be laid in a herringbone pattern to reconstruct the pattern visible in the historic photographs. Staff finds the sidewalk replacement consistent with Guideline 9.8(5). The proposal is substantiated by pictorial evidence. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the SOI Standards, specifically standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence." 10 April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the application, as submitted, excluding approval for the realignment of the exterior trim boards and the replacement of the column base with substitute materials, with the following conditions: 1. Chimneys: The location and design of the reconstructed chimneys will be based directly on physical and documented evidence. Chimney flashing to be installed in step pattern in the mortar joints of the masonry. Brick masonry and mortar will match existing in dimension, scale, color, texture and other physical attributes. 2. Sidewalk: Reconstruction of the brick masonry sidewalk will be based directly on documented evidence. Additional engineering review and inspection is required by the Planning & Development Department to assure that the resulting sidewalk meets relevant accessibility and environmental codes. 3. Exterior Porch Light: New lighting will conform to Guideline 9.22 and require final review and approval by the staff. 4. Rear porch steps will be constructed of wood or concrete. 5. Front porch steps will be constructed of wood. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (APRIL 3, 2025) Staff member Ratzlaff presented the application to the commission. Commissioner Fennell asked whether any historic documentation existed regarding the railing along the rear steps. Ratzlaff identified a historic photograph included in the staff report that depicted the railing. Mr. Joe Tollett, the property owner and applicant, addressed the Commission. He noted that the current railing is made of galvanized pipe and is not original, as shown in the historic photographs. Commissioner Aleman asked Mr. Tollett whether he was amenable to staff's recommendations. Mr. Tollett responded that most of staff's comments had been anticipated and were addressed during the Design Review Committee meeting. He expressed agreement with all staff recommendations except for one: his request to use a substitute material for the front porch column bases. Mr. Tollett explained that he believed the current bases were not original and had been previously repaired with profiles inconsistent with those shown in the historic photographs. He expressed a desire to recreate the original profile using a substitute material. 11 April 3, 2025 Historic District Commission Commissioner Jones commended the application for its alignment with the Design Guidelines and the applicant's attention to detail in the restoration effort. She acknowledged that the current column bases were not original and stated that, while restoring the original profiles was appropriate, using wood rather than a substitute material would be more consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Commissioner Aleman concurred. Mr. Tollett also requested an extension of the standard one-year expiration term for the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to three years, explaining that he would be completing the work himself. Staff member Ratzlaff confirmed that the request was reasonable given the scope of work and noted that the ordinance permits the commission to extend the COA expiration term at the applicant's request based on project scope. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to approve the application with staff's recommendations, specifying that wood steps be used for the rear porch, and granting a three-year extension of the COA expiration term. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. 12