Loading...
HDC_12 13 20101 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 13, 2010, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Randy Ripley Loretta Hendrix Chris Vanlandingham Members Absent: Julie Wiedower City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Clevetta Weems Orson Weems Karen Weems Director Erma Hendrix Rhea Roberts II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Randy Ripley to approve the minutes of November 8, 2010 as corrected. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. Chairman Marshall Peters acknowledged the presence of Director Erma Hendrix in the audience. Mr. Minyard suggested that the order of the agenda could be changed to accommodate Directors Hendrix’s questions in case she had another meeting to attend. The commission agreed and she addressed the Commission. She asked the commission about the item that had been forwarded to the Board of directors to add two commissioners. She stated that she had it pulled form the agenda because she is conscious on the makeup of the commissions. More specifically, she stated it was pulled because of the positions were to be held by people of color. She asked Mr. Minyard if he had a copy of that resolution. He stated that he did not but was aware of it. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Minyard to explain the new positions. She asked if the Commission was ready to have it proceed. She asked that the commission look at minorities to be added to the Board. Mr. Minyard explained that the two 2 proposed new commissioners would be required to live in national register historic districts and that the final selection of the new commissioners would be the decision of the Board of Directors as submitted by the Mayor. She stated the explanation satisfied her questions. She stated that she would atlk to Mr. Bruce Moor and get it placed on the agenda. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness 3 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: December 13, 2010 APPLICANT: Stephan McAteer, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History ADDRESS: 503 East Ninth Street COA REQUEST: Signage The applicant requested a deferral to the January 10, 2010 hearing on November 29, 2010 in order to obtain a full list of property owners. Staff supports this request for deferral. COMMISSION ACTION: December 13, 2010 A motion was made by Commissioner Randy Ripley to defer the item to the January meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Loretta Hendrix. The motion passed with 4 aye votes and 1 absent (Commissioner Wiedower). DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 4 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: January 10, 2011 APPLICANT: Clevetta Weems ADDRESS: 413 Daisy Bates Drive COA REQUEST: Demolition of Structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 413 Daisy Bates Drive. The property’s legal description is part of lots 11 and 12 of Block 54 of the original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built ca. 1904. The 2008 survey form states: “A craftsman structure heavily damaged and continuing to deteriorate.” It is not considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District because of the lack of a complete roof. With a proper roof, Staff believes this would be a contributing structure. This building was used as operating rooms for Dr. Green’s hospital, then “Battle Creek Baths” and later a nursing home. Dr. Green’s hospital was located at 1402 Commerce in the existing structure, operated in the 1920’s – 1940’s and was one of the first hospitals to accept mental patients. This application for the Demolition of the Structure. A structural Inspection Report from Hall Engineering is included in the packet. If allowed to demolish the structure, a fence would be installed to match the existing fence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 5 North elevation from 2008 survey North elevation today West elevation from 2008 survey West elevation today South elevation from 2008 survey South elevation today East elevation from 2008 survey East elevation today 6 PROPOSAL: This application is for the Demolition of the Structure. The plan is to fence the property with a fence to match the existing fencing already on site that is show in two of the photos above. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Below are excerpts from page 73 of the new Guidelines concerning demolitions of structures in the district. VII. GUIDELINES FOR RELOCATION AND DEMOLITION “Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition.” “Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a “contributing” historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status. Demolition by neglect occurs when routine maintenance procedures are not followed, allowing damage from weather, water, insects or animals. Proper routine maintenance and/or rehabilitation are strongly recommended. “Under certain conditions, however, demolition permits may be granted by the Historic District Commission: 1. The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer, architect, or other person expert in historic preservation. 2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of a building. 3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not to the financial status of the property owner. 4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer contributes to the district. 5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the building.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this application of a neutral nature. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a demolition and fence permit. 7 COMMISSION ACTION: December 13, 2010 Mr. Brian Minyard, staff, presented the item to the Commission. He summarized the guidelines recommendations on demolition. He quickly summarized the engineer’s report. Ms. Clevetta Weems, property owner, addressed the Commission. She added that she was concerned for the safety of her family and the condition of the structure. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked how long she had lived there. She responded twelve years. He asked about the future plans of the lot. She responded that it would be fenced and become part of her yard. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked if she was aware of the structural condition of the buildings, and if she knew construction methods. Ms. Weems responded no. Commissioner Hendrix stated that if all building that had horizontal or vertical cracks after the tornado were razed, there would be no buildings left in the area. She stated that she was against the demolition of the structure and would not vote for the demolition. She suggested that they defer the item. She continued to ask about the history of the building. She asked who Dr. Greene was. Mr. Minyard answered that the information came from the last architectural survey of the neighborhood and stated he quoted their research. Commissioner Hendrix asked the applicant if she had been involved in historic preservation. She answered that her husband was, but she has not. Commissioner Hendrix asked if loiters on the property was the only reason to raze the property. Commissioner Hendrix asked if Ms. Weems needed to take a break or have others answer her questions for her. Mr. Minyard suggested that it might be the time to have others in support of the demolition to come forward and speak. Ms. Weems left the podium. Orson Weems, brother in law to the applicant spoke in favor of the demolition. Commissioner Hendrix commented on the beauty of the structure. She spoke of other buildings that suffered in the tornado. She commented that the walls were not bucked. Mr. Weems stated that in some areas, the walls are buckled and there is considerable damage to parts of the walls. The photos do not show the areas of most damage, those inside the fence. Chairman Marshall Peters commented that he has spoken to Wyatt Weems some time back and had learned that this was a brick veneer over wood frame construction, not a solid masonry building and a lot of rot had occurred to the wood structure. Commissioner Randy Ripley commented that having experienced working in the district. There is a watershed moment when a structure ceased to become less of an asset and more of a detriment to the district. He continued that just because it has been there a long time, does not make it and asset to the district. A point in time happens when it is not economically feasible to restore the building and he feels that the structure has reached that point. Mr. Weems thanked Commissioner Ripley for his comments and noted his agreement. He continued that once the building was down, the area would be more beautiful. Commissioner Ripley interjected that he felt it was a shame that the building go to that shape in the first place and said that in it’s day, he felt it was nice looking building. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham commented that he drives by the building almost daily and has mixed feeling about it. He stated that the placement of the building in proximity to the main house destined it to be either a garage or shop. He cannot see how it could be split off and sold as a different parcel. He sees that it might be made into a guest house. The location is odd and might have been better if it has never been placed there originally. He would prefer that the building be rehabbed and used. 8 Commissioner Hendrix commented that the history of Dr. Greene was placed in the report for a reason. She asked what part of the report was the engineer’s report and what was generated by staff. Mr. Minyard answered her. She continued that she envisioned a battlefield and this being the hospital and the “baths” noted in the staff report was for the bloodbath that happened. She admitted she had never heard the history on this before. She suggested that they take time over the holidays to think about it and decide. She continued that not many African Americans have that type of structure on their property. She reiterated that if all structure that had horizontal or vertical cracks as a result of the tornado were razed, there would be no structures left downtown. She asked Mr. Minyard the actual number of structures that were damaged. He did not know the number. She feels that historic preservation was not stressed and promoted enough. Mr. Minyard addressed the applicant and added that if the commission approves your COA for the demolition of the building that is the commission giving you permission to do so. You may leave your building standing if you wish or demolish it. Ms. Debra Weldon added that the statement was correct, but the applicant would need to get a demolition permit from the city and that there are requirements associated with the permit, (asbestos removal, utility checks and capping, etc.) The city will require proof that the Commission has approved this before a demolition permit is issued. Commissioner Ripley asked if the applicant had received a bid for demolition. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked if any people are going to do any salvage work on the building. Mr. Weems stated that some people had asked for certain pieces of the building. He contacted a brick salvage business but was unable to coordinate with them. He said that some people had asked about the iron staircase on the east. Commissioner Ripley asked if the engineer gave any estimate to repair the building. Mr. Weems said not that he was aware of it. Chairman Peters said that Wyatt Weems stated just before he left the commission, that the price was prohibitive to restore the building. Commissioner Ripley continued that in restoration work before, he thought he was going to do a little repair, and eventually, he was down to the dirt. Director Hendrix asked the commission if the commission had heard from any association in the area. Chairman Peters stated that there was one phone call from an adjacent property owner but she failed to make a comment specific to this demolition. Commissioner Hendrix commented that after the tornado hit Director Henrdrix’s house, they were told that it had to be torn down. They restored it. Chairman Peters commented that he too lives in a house that he was told it had to be torn down after the tornado. Commissioner Hendrix spoke to Mr. Weems that she felt that there would be money to be found to restore the building. She mentioned possibly a grant from CLG. Mr. Minyard addressed the Chairman to note the he had provided Mr. Weems and the applicant state income tax credit information for rehab of the structure. Mr. Weems commented that the larger house was also hit by the tornado and it was restored. At the time, his brother did not find it financially feasible to restore it. He questions the financially feasibility of restoring it today. Commissioner Ripley noted that there is a difference in “traumatic damage” to a house (for example a fire, tornado, etc) versus “long term deterioration”. He stated that these are two drastically different things. The ability to repair 9 “traumatic damage” is much easier, because more of the structure is still there, in good shape and it may be a matter of repositioning them to their correct position. “Long term deterioration is a very different thing, much more extensive. The good parts of the building are just not there in long term deterioration. He believes the average landlord would not be able to recoup the financial gain. Chairman Peters addressed the applicant and told them that they have already heard the vote of one of the commissioners. He informed then that they must have three votes in their favor out of the commissioners present. If the motion failed, they would have to wait for one year to come back to the commission to request demolition. Mr. Minyard added that there was one commissioner absent and that it was the applicant’s decision to defer or not. It was clarified that the applicant was Ms. Weems, not her and her brother in law. Chairman Peters asked Ms. Weldon if a city code officer or fire marshal stated that the building had to come down, would they have to wait a year to come back to the commission. Ms. Weldon did not have an immediate answer to the question and said she was looking for that text. Ms. Clevetta Weems asked to defer the item to the January 10, 2011 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Vanlandingham to defer the item to the January meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Loretta Hendrix. The motion passed with 4 aye votes and 1 absent (Commissioner Wiedower). 10 Cover letter from applicant 11 Engineering Report page 1 12 Engineering Report page 2 13 Engineering Report page 3 14 Engineering Report page 4 15 Engineering Report page 5 16 Engineering Report page 6 17 Engineering Report page 7 18 Engineering Report page 8 19 Engineering Report page 9 20 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 13, 2010 APPLICANT: Staff COA REQUEST: Ordinance Revisions In the 1981 Historic Preservation ordinance, there is the following language in what was then Section 23-132 Certificate of appropriateness – Generally (Sec 23-132 (d)) which states: “A certificate of appropriateness is not required for repairs, alternations, new construction, moving or demolitions that are not visible from the street or streets which abut subject property.” This language was inadvertently excluded in the ordnance that was revised in May of 2007. If language were added to the current ordinance to address that, it would be inserted in Sec 23- 116. Exemptions. Currently, the wording is as follows: Section 23-116. - Exemptions. Nothing in this division shall: (a) Prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district created by this division which does not involve a change in design, material, or outer appearance thereof, nor to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any such feature which the building inspector or other agent of the city shall certify is required by the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (b) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration or demolition of any such feature under a permit issued by a building inspector or similar agent of the city prior to the effective date of the establishment of the historic district. Staff has reworded this section to divide it into four sections. The sections address the following issues in his order: a) Regular maintenance, B) Those items not visible from abutting streets, c) health safety issues, and d) those built prior to the establishment of the district. Section 23-116. Exemptions. Nothing in this division shall: (a) Prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district created by this division, which does not involve a change in design, material, or outer appearance thereof; (b) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district, which is not visible from a public or private street. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 21 (c) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district which the building inspector or other agent of the city shall certify is required to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition; or (d) Prevent the construction, reconstructions, alteration, restoration or demolition of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district under a permit issued by a building inspector or similar agent of the city prior to the effective date of the establishment of the historic district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. COMMISSION ACTION: November 8, 2010 Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that since 2007, the Commission had been operating without that provision. Debra Weldon of the City Attorney’s office suggested that the two sections be broken into four sections. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked why the exact language of the older ordinance was not recommended to be used it new update. Mr. Minyard responded that, in an academic discussion, in a block devoid of trees and houses, the first house would have all four sides of that structure visible from a street. All four sides would have an effect on the district. If there is only one vacant lot in the interior of the block, the rear façade will not be seen at all and the side facades will be seen somewhat and the front façade will be most important. The district has half blocks that are totally devoid of trees and houses. We also have two, three, and four lots that are abutted by the highway department land, so those facades will always be visible from a street. Since 2005, the Commission has been looking at all four sides of new structures. On rehabs, the Commission has been reviewing rear facades when visible from a street. The Commission has in effect been reviewing structure as stated in the new language. The new language gives you more review. Commissioner Randy Ripley commented on why the word street was used instead of the word public right-of-way. Mr. Minyard stated that alleys are public right-of-way and that would involve reviewing rear facades of buildings even when in the interior of the blocks. This review would be more contrary to how the Commission has been practicing review on structures and contrary to the old language. Commissioner Ripley continued that some things would be visible from one angle but not from the other and how that would be rectified as to review or not. Trees in full leaf or not could make a difference. Previous actions before the Commission was discussed. Commissioner Wiedower mentioned the Ratcliff House with the rear façade clearly visible from Main Street. She felt that this would be holding different property owners to different standards. Chairman Peters motioned houses on corner lots, taller houses, etc. and stated that some need to have more governance than others do. Commissioner Wiedower asked if a survey could be made of other districts. Mr. Minyard stated that we could ask Patricia Blick since they probably have those copies in their files already. Ms. Blick agreed to do so. Mr. Minyard stated that as the Commission reviews cases on a case-by-case basis, they weigh factors unique to that property. At that time, the commissioners decide, on an individual basis, if they believe if one side is not as visible as the other and have the responsibility to factor that into your vote and bring that into the discussion. Chairman Peters warned that we should be in conformance with the state laws. He also was weary of drastic modifications to rear facades 22 that were visible from other streets that were not abutting, for example the Ratcliff House that is visible from Main Street. Commissioner Wiedower reiterated her point that this would be holding different property owners to different standards. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked why this topic was being discussed at this point in time and if it was to accommodate someone. Commissioner Wiedower stated that it was left out of the ordinance when it was updated. Mr. Minyard stated that this was brought up in the October 2010 meeting. Ms. Blick commented on how things are handled in Maryland. Chairmen Peters stated that the state law permits 360-degree review. Mr. Minyard stated that this item would reappear on the December agenda for your consideration. STAFF UPDATE: December 13, 2010 The state enabling legislation does not state a condition based on visible from a right-of-way or street on facades to review. A quote from the state legislation is in the attached letter on the last page. This leaves the decision up to the individual commissions to state, or not state, in their ordinance, which facades they will review. Attached is a copy of the letter from Patricia Blick, CLG coordinator from the AHPP. She surveyed the fourteen CLG’s and had responses from eight of them. Three specifically state the word right-of-way in their ordinance and two state that the historic preservation officer is charged with determining what is visible from a public right-of-way. Van Buren’s ordinance states the “’exterior’ of a structure shall include the front façade, the back façade, the exposed side wall of a corner building and any exposed side wall or a two or three story building.” Please note that the Van Buren District is a purely a commercial district. North Little Rock, not covered in the letter, reviews the backs of structures because alleys are considered public right- of-ways. They have had cases where the proposed improvements are visible from a street that does not abut. The Little Rock HDC has reviewed the backs of buildings previously. In a search of all COA’s approved since January 2005, results are as follows: A) 13 new structures in which all four facades were presented to the Commission for review. These include all new structures, houses, apartments, police stations, and church facilities. B) 3 COA’s for additions or renovations to the rear of the buildings that were reviewed by the Commission. For example: the Rainwater Building’s rear façade was reviewed since the rear façade is clearly visible across the parking lot from Sixth Street, an addition of a large dock door at 9th and Rock on an interior side lot line with a vacant lot adjacent tot the improvements, and the addition to the Fish Factory at 12th and Scott to the rear of the building but visible across their parking lot to the Street. C) 6 COA’s that had elements that included the entire house and were reviewed. These include whole house siding, window, and gutter replacement COA’s. D) 1 action that added space to the back of the structure that was not visible from the street and was not reviewed as part of the application. This was on South Commerce Street where the COA was for “Addition to rear of house, roof replacement, siding replacement, picket fence in front with arbor and exterior lighting.” The Commission reviewed everything but rear façade of the house. However, the Commission did reduce the width of the addition on the house to be less than the width of the entire house, so that the addition read as an addition. 23 The construction of new buildings should be held to a higher scrutiny than the modifications to existing structures as evidenced in the practice of the Commission since 2005. The Commission should review all sides of new construction because in certain instances, all four sides of the structures are visible from public and private streets because of vacant lots. The Commission should review all visible facades regardless of whether the trees have leaves on them or not. Since the Commission reviews items on a case-by-case basis, the Commission can weigh factors unique to that property into the review. At the hearing, the commissioners should decide, on an individual basis, if they believe if one side is not as visible as the other and have the responsibility to factor that into your vote and bring that into the discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of text submitted earlier. COMMISSION ACTION: December 13, 2010 It was noted for the record that Commissioner Hendrix had left the room and was out of the room during this vote only. A motion was made by Commissioner Ripley to defer the item to the January meeting and was seconded by commissioner Vanlandingham. The motion passed with 3 aye votes and 2 absent (Commissioner Wiedower and Hendrix). OTHER MATTERS CONTINUED: Enforcement issues Mr. Minyard stated that one COC was issued to 920 South Scott Street but not for the porch redo. He stated that he will contact the owner and discuss it with them. Certificates of Compliance Mr. Minyard stated that one COC was issued to 920 South Scott Street for the roofing of the structure. Dunbar Survey Update Mr. Minyard reported that there has been movement on the survey. He has provided a new map to the consultant and has had AHPP review the submittals from the consultant. Preservation Plan subcommittee Mr. Minyard reported that the committee met earlier in the month and has made progress on the goals and objectives. The Mayor and the City Manger are to be invited to the next monthly meeting. Ordinance Revision of adding Commissioners to Commission At the request of Commissioner Hendrix, Mr. Minyard started a discussion concerning the addition of two additional commission members to the commission. He stated what the ordinance says and what a misconception of what it was thought to mean for the commission. All commissioners agreed that what they thought was actually what the ordinance proposal says. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham stated that he was not on the commission at the time but felt that the proposed ordinance watered down the presence of the property owners. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present at this point in the meeting. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Attest: B Chair Secretary /Staff 24 /- � 1 --)-0 / Date �_ -:;??(" 20 (( Date