Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2011-003 Staff Report, Item No. A. 04/25/2011ROCK LITTLE HISTORIC f ±'; DISTRICT COMMISSION DATE: April25, 2011 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1414 Rock Street COA REQUEST: New Infill House The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the April 11, 2011 agenda on February 22, 2011 via phone message. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of deferral. COMMMISISON ACTION: March 14. 2011 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to defer the application to the April 11, 2011 meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Randy Ripley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1414 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 9, Block 49, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is a vacant lot. The former building, The Warner House, was demolished earlier. This application is for a New Infill House. It is similar to a traditional shotgun house with an addition or bump -out to the south side. There is no separate garage proposed with this application. 2of17 ►Oi . all f 1 M W CAPJT01 / A Off o ►E A� �p- c � fr' .'`Rai �e FYN Location of Project PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions on this site were located with a search of the files. NORTH ELlVATIOIt -- - EASY ELEVATION WEST iL EVAT I ON Elevations SOWTH ELEVATION WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: As stated on page 63 of the 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 and footprint of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings. Shotgun houses are not as common as they once were in the city, but are a compatible shape for infill houses. This house features a "bump -out" or what would have been an "addition" to the structure (if this had been an historic house) on the south side where the entry is located. 2. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is approximately 20 feet, which is slightly less than the adjacent buildings. The width of the building is compatible although less wide than the adjacent buildings on that block face. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a 9/12 roof that is similar to the structures in the area. The gable ends will be to the east and west. The latest submittal shows the roofing material will be corrugated Galvalume roofing with exposed rafters. The roof will have eaves that are four feet deep. (Zoning code allows for 30" overhang. See "Placement on the Lot on page 4 for further discussion.) The building has a flat portion on the roof that is not compatible with the neighborhood. There are other buildings in the area (namely apartments) that have flat roofs, but those buildings are larger in footprint and height (two stories or more). 3of17 The roofing material on the flat portion of the roof is proposed to be membrane roof with parapet walls. No detail of how high the parapet walls are was given. An option to remove the flat portion of the roof and to be more compatible with the neighborhood is to place a shed dormer over the entry originating at the ridgeline as shown below by the red lines. L.1 - WE 67 C LC VArmH shed roof over entry bump -out shown in red. IOUTH ELEVAYMN 4. Orientation to the street: The orientation of the building is compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: The proposed building is not incompatible. The front door faces east onto the street. The window on the east fagade is an appropriate size. The windows on the south fagade, on the entry bump -out, are small square windows. However, these windows will not be readily seen when the house to the south is completed. There is a window on the main body of the house on the south. The three windows to the north will not be readily seen because of the house at 1410. A window on the north side closer to Rock Street would be desirable. There is not a front porch per se; it consists of two ramps approaching the door under the 4' overhang of the roof. The door appears to be flush with the wall, not inset. 6. Foundation height: The new building will appear to have a two to three blocks high foundation of concrete block with natural finish. This height of the foundation is lower than most historic homes in the area, but is compatible. 7. Floor to ceiling height: The ceiling height is 10 feet and is appropriate. 8. Porch height and depth: There is not a front porch per se; it consists of two ramps approaching the door under the 4' overhang of the roof. The door appears to be flush with the wall, not inset. No handrail detail has been shown; however, if it is shorter than 30" in height, a handrail is not required. 9. Material and material color (if brick —closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if frames —matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The exterior material of the structure is 10" wide Hardie plank lap siding painted and 24" Hardie panel board and batten siding. Trim for the house is noted as 6" Hardie trim painted. The submittals imply a three tone color scheme for the paint. The windows are listed to be either Pella or Anderson, metal clad windows, silver-gray finish. Casements are 3'x6' and the awning windows are 2'x2'. Doors are listed as exterior grade wood, dark stain finish. Gable vents are noted at 2'xi'. 4 of 17 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size, The Hardie board trim around the windows and doors is not incompatible with the area. 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The proposal is to have a 25' front yard setback. The two buildings to the south have a 15' setback and the two buildings to the north have less than a 25' setback. A 15' front yard setback would be more compatible with the block face. A 5' side setback on the north and a 20' side yard setback on the south are proposed. The proposed eaves are 48" deep. Chapter 36-156(a)(2)a, states: "Every part of a required yard, except as provided herein, shall be open from its lowest point to the sky unobstructed, except for the ordinary projection of sills, cornices, buttresses, ornamental features, and eaves, provided, however, that none of the above projections shall project into a minimum side yard more than thirty (30) inches." The north setback will need to be increased to 6'-6" to remove the requirement for a Board of Adjustment hearing. Walks to the structures were unnoted. The brick sidewalk on Rock was noted to remain with a new segment of concrete to meet the existing walk to the north. The Drive will be of 1 /8" gravel. No mention is also made of what the material is on the walk from the parking area to the house. Exterior lighting will be recessed cans at the entries. With exposed rafters on the eaves, a question arises on how recessed cans can be "recessed." Mechanical units will be placed on the north side of the structure. Guidelines suggest that they be placed near the rear of the structure. They are not requesting the following at this time: Signage, guttering on house, satellite dishes, fences, gutters (except on entry bump -out), or photovoltaics. Overall, the proposed house is compatible with the area with the exceptions of the front yard setback and the flat roof. 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 building permit. 2. Reduce front yard setback to 15 feet. 3. Increase north side yard setback to 6-6" or file for Board of Adjustment for variance. 4. Remove flat roof from structure and replace with shed roof originating at the ridgeline. COMMISSION ACTION: April 11. 2011 Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, stated that since there were only three present and that since Commissioner Ripley would have to recuse on the next two items, there would not be a quorum to continue the meeting. Page Wilson addressed the commission and stated that this was a financial distress for him. It was discussed that he had sought one deferral on his request already. This would not count as one of his deferrals. After discussion, it was decided that staff would try to set a called meeting for April 25, 2011. Publication deadlines for the legal ad, and booking a room was discussed. Staff would contact all parties present to inform them when the meeting was set. Commissioner Wiedower made a 5of17 motion to convene a special meeting as soon as possible, hopefully April 25, 2011. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded. The motion passed with three ayes and two absent (Peters and Vanlandingham). COMMISSION ACTION: _ April 25, 2011 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Wiedower asked for clarification on the north side yard setback with the difference of a 30" and a 48" overhang. Mr. Minyard provided clarification. Page Wilson, the applicant, spoke to the commission. He stated that he was removing the garage from the application (it was not supposed to be on this application), he was amending the front yard setback to 15 feet and 10 feet for the north side yard setback. He showed photos of other structures he had built to the commission. He stated the house was 16 feet wide on the front with a bump out on the side, which is the living room. The bedrooms are on the front and back of the house. He continued to describe the layout of the house and showed a plan to the commission. Mr. Wilson spoke of the overhangs and how that they might not be 48" because of the clearance needed to open the casement windows. Commissioner Wiedower stated that if the windows did not open, it would be problematic. She stated that the commission could not approve maybe, that they needed concrete design decisions. Commissioner Wiedower asked the goal of the 48" overhang. Was it a protective covering or aesthetic? Mr. Wilson stated that the eves were part of architecture and design functions of sun and weather protection. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they were flat of cathedral ceiling in the in the living room. Mr. Wilson stated that there were 10' ceilings throughout the house. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the trim around the windows and door. Trim was not shown around the door. He stated that it was a concern of his. Mr. Wilson stated that the front door did not have a window. Mr. Wilson stated that the foundation was to be 18' on the rear of the structure. He continued that the lot was flatter than the other lots. Commissioner Vanlandingham commented that there were many houses in the area with flat roofs or almost flat roofs on the porches. He stated that he did not have a issue with the flat portion of the roof. He continued and commented on the rafter tails. Mr. Wilson stated that they would be cut horizontally and that would allow for window opening and protects the rafter tails from rot. The rafters are to be 2x10". Commissioner Loretta Hendrix stated that the drawings were not detailed enough. Mr. Wilson stated that there was not enough money for detailed drawings. Commissioner Hendrix stated that they were not detailed enough to make a concrete decision. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the lap siding. Mr. Wilson stated that it was 10" lap siding with 9-1/4 inch exposure. The board and batten siding will be 4x8 sheets with battens 24" on center with a batten of 2-1/2 to 3". Commissioner Wiedower asked if the siding configuration was exactly as shown on the drawings. Mr. Wilson said yes it was. He continued that there was a trim piece between the siding that is different color. 6 of 17 The foundation height was discussed and Mr. Wilson stated it should be three steps up to the house in the rear. Chairman Peters commented on the 15' front yard setback. It was confirmed that the application had been amended to change the setback to 15'. Mr. Wilson stated that the windows would be Anderson brand with a grey anodized finish. The trim color around the windows will be similar to the window color. The color selection on the siding is very close to the colors shown on the rendering. Mr. Wilson stated that the lighting would be different than the recessed light as shown on the plan. He stated that the light would be similar to the light at 324 East 15th Street. A discussion centered around if there were to be one or two downspouts. Two downspouts are to be requested, but if only one is to be installed, it will be installed on the west side. Commissioner Wiedower stated that one downspout on the rear would be preferred. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the siding on the north side between the three windows. After discussion, it was decided that the siding would be flat as shown on the drawings. Commissioner Wiedower stated that there were many opinions on new construction in the historic district. When the HDC approves a design, the commission needs to know it be built as approved. When changes are done in the field, the commission ends up with infill that is non - complimentary. The HDC needs to be told exactly what is to be built. Mr. Wilson stated the walkways would be a permeable rock with 4x4" timber borders. He continued to state that the trim around the door will be a 1 x4" trim. Mr. Minyard summarized the clarifications to the application. Mr. Wilson amended his application to conform with the statements. Scott Grummer spoke as a citizen, and stated that his views may not reflect the views of his board. He commented on exciting growth in the area and those are coming from contemporary designs. Mrs. Wilson talked about affordability of the houses and that there were building on vacant lots. She continued to say that there was interest in moving into the neighborhood. A summary of the conditions is as follows: 1. No garage accessory building shall be built with this C.O.A. 2. 15' front year setback measured to the exterior of wall face. 3. 10' north side yard setback measured to exterior of wall face. 4. 10' high ceilings throughout house. 5. Front door will not have window. Trim around door will be 1 "x4". 6. Rafter tails to be cut horizontally. Rafters are 2"x10" wood. 7. Siding: Siding configuration is as shown on drawing dated 03/22/2011 with 1 x4" trim between different colors of siding and around doors and windows. Siding around three windows on north side is to be flat panel siding. Board and Batten siding on the bump out will be 48 sheets with battens 24" on center and 2-1/2 to 3" wide battens. Color selection of siding is very close to color renderings submitted to commissioners at 04/25/2011 meeting. Lap siding to be 10" lap siding with 9-1/4" exposure. 7of17 8. Foundation block height is to be 18" at rear of house. 9. Windows to be Anderson brand with gray anodized finish. All windows are to be operable. 10. Exterior lighting to be placed on wall next to front door to be similar to light at 324 E 15tn I Street. 11. Two downspouts are requested, however, if only one downspout is installed, it will be to the west. Gutters are Galvalume and will match trim piece on flat roof section. 13. Parapet height to be a maximum of 4'-0". 14. Herringbone sidewalk on public sidewalk to remain. Mr. Minyard noted that there were two emails concerning this application. One email was in opposition to the project and one was asking the commission to go by their guidelines. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application as submitted and amended by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vanlandingham and was approved with four ayes and one absent (Ripley). 8of17