Loading...
HDC_08 03 1983M I N U T E S HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 1983 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHAIRMAN MS. BETH FOTI MR. BILL KENNEDY, III MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR. MR. GEORGE WORTHEN MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE ATTORNEY PRESENT: MS. CAROLYN WITHERSPOON STAFF PRESENT: MR. MIKE DOOLEY The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 4:05 P.M. and finding a Quorum to exist, the Commission moved to accept the Minutes of the previous meeting as recorded. The single item on the Agenda was filed by Mr. Bob Rollins for Second Baptist Church for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a parking lot at 619 Cumberland and 618 Rock. Mr. John Jarrard, Chairman of the Historic District Commission stated that his affiliations as a member of Second Baptist Church and as a member of the Board of Albert Pike will cause him to abstain from voting on this matter. Mr. Bill Kennedy stated that he was a new member of the Commission, having just been appointed the previous night, that he was previously on record as being opposed to the request and that it was by his discretion along with the Advisement of the City Attorney's Office that he also abstain from voting on this request. Mr. Jarrard advised the applicant that there remained three (3) voting members of the Commission present and that they would need a favorable vote by all three to approve the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Jarrard announced the item open for discussion, noted that there had been received six (6) letters in opposition to the request as well as a -ank petition in opposition signed by six (6) residents in the area, and called on representatives of Second Baptist Church to make their presentation. Mr. Charles Ray who spoke in favor of the application began by stating that he was a downtown resident, a land owner within 300 ft. of the proposal and a member of Second Baptist Church. He stated that he felt it was in the best interest of the Commission and the Church that the Historic District Commission disqualify themselves completely on this matter as they were not the proper group to rule on the application due to their involvement in the Quapaw Quarter Association and other work, and further, asked the City to appoint another Board or listening body to hear the issue. Ms. Carolyn Witherspoon of the City Attorney's Office, advised Mr. Jarrard, the Commission Chairman, that since he had disqualified himself that he should not take part in further discussion of the matter and ruled that the Vice - Chairman, Mr. George Worthen, preside over the meeting. Mr. Ray asked Ms. Witherspoon if the Chairman had disqualified himself as Chairman or did he only say that he would not vote on this issue. She stated that he had abstained from the issue completely and as such, the abstention would require him to refrain from any participation on the issue at all. Mr. Worthen, Vice - Chairman of the Commission, asked for an opinion from the City Attorney on the question of moving the request to another review body. ,0ft Ms. Witherspoon stated that in her opinion, Mr. Bill Kennedy was the only Commissioner who requested an opinion on whether or not he should be disqualified and that the remaining three (3) members do constitute a Quorum and can conduct business. She stated that if there is some potential conflict of interest that exists, then it should be brought out and a ruling should be made, but on the face of the matter, the three (3) remaining Commissioners are duly qualified members and unless there is an appearance of inpropriety or they individually feel they have a conflict pursuant to the adopted by -laws, then they are the Commission and can hear the case. Mr. Worthen asked Mr. Ray to clarify his request to be more specific in light of the City Attorney's advice. Mr. Ray stated that he hoped that his statement would not be a personal matter, and that the application was important to both sides, but that he was mindful of Mr. Worthen's past involvement in Quapaw Quarter Association affairs and the fact that the Quapaw Quarter Association has, without benefit of permitting the Church to state its case, voted against this issue. He voiced his concern that someone who has served so well and often in that organization being unduly influenced even without possible knowledge of it. He stated that he believed Ms. Foti had a reversionary interest in a large piece of property about 200 ft. from the proposed parking lot. Ms. Foti askied which property he was alluding to, and Mr. Ray stated it was the Terry Mansion and property. Ms. Foti explained that this property now belongs to the City. Mr. Ray agreed to that point but that he only referred to a reversionary interest and that her name appeared on the record as an interested re- versionary party with the understanding that should the City turn the property back it would become hers again. Therefore, he stated that if either Mr. Worthen or Ms. Foti were to accept the Church's feeling, they would not have a Quorum due to the two (2) abstentions. Mr. Worthen stated that he did not share the Church's concerns and that any one who is trying to fulfill the objectives of the Historic District Commission would have some of the background that is represented on the Commission. He stated that he found no validity in the concern and moved to deny the request. Mr. Ray said he did want the concerns to be a part of the record and introduced Dr. Larry Maddox, Pastor of Second Baptist Church, to formally present the Church's request. Dr. Maddox again introduced himself and asked if the Commission had seen the site plan for the proposed parking lot. After receiving an affirmative answer, he began to discuss the request. He stated in the process of trying to make this property into a parking lot, the Church has tried to keep two (2) things in mind. One, and the initial motivation to purchase the property was an obvious need to provide additional parking for Second Baptist Church and second, was to keep in mind a sensitivity to the area in which it is located. He felt the Church has demonstrated this sensi- tivity to the Historic Section of the City and referred particularly to the Albert Pike Hotel project. He said that this sensitivity has led them to do some things that would not be ordinarily done in regard to a parking lot in this area. One, was that they proposed to leave all the trees on the property. Second, that the parking lot on the Rock Street side had been set back approximately 20 ft. so that the parking area does not begin beyond the front line of existing structures. At that point, they have further 2. provided a brick wall with a limestone cap as a way of screening the lot from the Rock Street side. He stated they have set aside several thousand dollars for additional landscaping which he believed was more extensive than the Ordinance requirement in order to make the area as attractive as possible. Also in the plan he felt there was an ample amount of green space and that the parking lot would be a great improvement over what exists, which is a vacant lot that has been vacant over a long period of time. He thought that the parking lot was appropriate for the area and one that would be a great improvement to the area and respectfully re- quested the Commission to honor the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Foti asked if the parking lot would be used by Buffington Towers Apartments and Dr. Maddox answered no. He stated that the Church has committed a portion of the Church's parking garage and a parking lot on the corner of Seventh and Cumberland Streets to Buffington Towers which necessitated their finding additional parking. He said there is always the possibility that Buffington Towers residents might park there but the intention at this point was to have the parking for the Church. He said that the Church is currently leasing parking space on a monthly basis with no long term agreement possible. Ms. Foti asked if the proposed parking would be used for employees or members of the Church. Dr. Maddox said it was for both employees and persons attending meetings during the day at the Church. Asked how many employees would be using the lot, Dr. Maddox stated that they would occupy 20 spaces. Mr. Strauss asked if any spaces were to be leased at this time. Dr. Maddox said at this time, their plan was to provide parking for Church employees and those that use the Church. He stated that he hoped to trade some spaces in the future with Buffington Towers due to the proximity of the two (2) uses to the two (2) parking areas, but that the owner of Buffington Towers and HUD would have to agree and that has not been accomplished. Mr. Worthen asked if there were other questions for Dr. Maddox and, being none, asked if other members of the Church would like to speak. Mr. Ray replied there was nothing at this time but asked to reserve the right to respond to objectors. Mr. Worthen called on objectors to the application and Ms. Catherine Matthews responded. She said she owned two (2) apartment buildings at 308 E. 7th Street and 628 Cumberland and stated that one of her buildings was about one foot (1') from the subject property and was against the proposal. She stated that a construction worker was peeking in her tennants windows and a piece of machinery had run into her garage. Mr. Tom Johnson, an architect, spoke next saying he owned a lot south of subject property, worked downtown and lived down the street. He stated that he would like to present several points on an aerial photograph (Exhibit #1). The photograph showed the boundary of the Historic District and yellow areas of surface and deck parking that exist. He stated that possibly fifty percent (50%) of the area from Cumberland west to Main was devoted to parking as well as about fifty percent (50%) of the area north of Capitol Avenue. His opinion was that there is enough surface parking 3. in this area and that none has been established since the creation of the Historic District. He felt the proposal to be an intrusion into the neigh- borhood that might set a precedent for future parking lots in the area. He pointed out that the proposed parking is in the Historic District while the principal use was outside of the boundaries of the district. He stated the area was primarily residential in the character of the buildings and in their use. Mr. Johnson presented a Board with twelve (12) photographs (Exhibit #2) of residential structures on Rock Street to attempt to further stress the residential character of the area and described the use, condition and sig- nificance of each. He stated that Rock Street is on the edge of the District that separates the residential from the commercial uses and, therefore, is the first to feel the pressure of development into the District. He stated that the architect for the Church had probably done the best that could be done in designing the proposed parking lot but no matter what was done, it would still be a parking lot. To illustrate his point, Mr. Johnson presented a board containing two (2) photographs (Exhibit #3), one of a landscaped parking lot and one that was not landscaped. He pointed out that even the landscaped lot had trees and shrubs, but that they were small and would take years to grow or would simply die and the result would be that you still have parked cars. He indicated that even if you substituted the landscaped parking that is approximately the same scale, in place of the proposed parking lot, that it still was not what he wanted on Rock Street. He stated that even though there were mature trees on the proposed site they would die if sur- rounded by asphalt. He said that the Rock Street area was a fragile neighbor- hood and would not survive the intrusion of a noncompatible parking lot. He felt that what the Commission was deciding was whether Rock Street would maintain a residential character or be an extension of the bad parts of the commercial district of downtown. His opinion was that the lot was requested due to the construction of Buffington Towers and that had the Church not given their parking to that development, they would not have to come back to recapture those parking spaces. He thought the parking should have been included in the previous Buffington Tower plan and reviewed by HUD, the State Historic Preser- vation Office and the Historic District Commission when Buffington Towers was built. Continuing, he alluded to the established State Capitol Zoning District and commented that a precedent had been set by this review body in denying several applications which were inconsistant with an established residential neighborhood. Lastly, he quoted from the approved Downtown Little Rock Development Plan adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on March 1, 1983 which states for the MacArthur Park area that the primary goal is "to build on the existing, unique historic cultural and recreational values and to encourage both renovation efforts and new infill development on vacant or underutilized tracts in order to provide a permanent downtown residential population." He asked that the Historic District Commission follow the City Board of Directors guidance on the matter and deny the application as totally incompatible with the Historic District. The next speaker in opposition to the proposal was Mr. Ralph Megna, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association. He stated he was at the hearing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Association to represent their opinion on the project. He began by stating that the Quapaw Quarter Associa- tion deeply regrets finding itself in opposition to the Second Baptist Church AWk on this issue. The church is a member in good standing with the Association, its contributions to the revitalization of downtown, and the preservation of a historic hotel building, are well known. However, the QQA is compelled to 4. represent the best interests of the neighborhood. And in this case, he agreed with nearby property owners and residents that the proposed parking lot would be an undesirable addition to this improving corner of the Quapaw Quarter. He stated that probably the only thing they regreted more than finding them- selves in opposition to the Church was the tactic that the Church used in trying to disqualify the Commission. He felt it was regretable that a dis- qualification should be asked by a Commission such as this, simply on the basis that they are connected in some fashion with the Quapaw Quarter Association. He stated that for twenty years the position and activisim of the Association on downtown issues has been well known, its impact has been clear and this Commission is a product of that work. He stated the Associa- tion should not have to silence its voice in order to get qualified citizens to represent the interests of the City. That aside, he continued to say the Quapaw Quarter Association Board has voted unanimously to oppose the issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness for this project at its meeting on June 14th. This action followed presentations, the week before, by Charles Ray for the Church and Tom Johnson for the neighborhood. He added that, no member of the Committee of the Church tried to contact his Association and that he had con- tacted the Church asking for a presentation to his Board of Directors, and noted the contrast to the stance that First Lutheran Church took a year and a half ago which was over the opposition of the Association and also located on Rock Street. In that case, he noted that the Lutheran Church held repeated meetings and in the end were able to resolve the situation in a way that was compatible with the Historic District, was acceptable with the Historic District Commission and was met with full approval of the Quapaw Quarter Association. There were in his opinion, three (3) excellent arguments for refusing the certificate. First, it makes little sense to construct a parking lot within the Historic District for a building which lies outside of it (assuming, of course, that the eventual users of the parking will be the employees and residents of Buffington Tower). If this kind of erosion-at-the- edges is permitted to begin with this project, it will be virtually impossible to control the design quality of the construction destined to follow the completion of the Wilbur Mills Freeway. Second, it fails to meet any of the compatibility standards outlined in the Historic District guidelines. If the parking lot were part of the redevelopment of an existing building or of new construction within the district, its need and appropriateness would be obvious. But, judged alone, it does not contribute one bit to the historic character and charm of Rock Street. Third, the Second Baptist Church has not proven any hardship. The institution has fulfilled the HUD requirements for parking for the Albert Pike and Buffington Tower by committing space at 7th and Rock. By its own choice, the Church has leased roughly 100 parking spaces that it owns at 8th and Cumberland to a private party, rather than retain them for its own use. Finally, their analysis showed that over 1,100 spaces of commercial parking exist in eight (8) nearby blocks, and stated that the rental of this existing surface parking is preferable to the creation of still more within the district. He stated that there was also a lack of alternative in the case, as construction of buildings on the site could be at least as bene- ficial economically to the Church than parking. He concluded that the Association petitioned the Commission in the strongest terms possible to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness on this project. The next speaker in opposition was Mr. W. J. Walker, Attorney, who owns the house at 601 Rock. He stated that eight (8) years ago when he restored the house this was a skid row area of little Rock. He stated the existing im- provements today were beyond compattson to the abandoned and burned buildings of that time. He described his parking lot and its screening and agreed that 5. even a well designed parking lot winds up to be just another parking lot. He stated that subject property was elevated about two (2) feet from the street level and very visible. He felt that when Buffington Towers does start to use the parking it will be in and out traffic which in his opinion was worse than all day parking. He stated he thought the proposed parking would be a detriment to the area and requested the Commission to deny the request. Mr. Greg Jones who rents property in the neighborhood stated he was attracted to the area because of the existing residential character and asked the Commission to deny the proposed parking lot. The next speaker in opposition to the proposal was Mr. Wilson Stiles, State Historic Preservation Officer. He read the following statement: The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is charged by federal and state laws with the responsibility of identifying, protecting, and preserving our valuable historic resources. These federal and state mandates are the basis of our concerns re- garding the proposed parking lot development. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program appreciates the opportunity to comment on this case and would like to state its objection to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program questions Second Baptist's urgent need for additional parking. The July 21 Gazette article included in the packet re- ports that, "Second Baptist has needed acCitional parking for years..." This justification is contradictory to assurances made by Second Baptist in the past. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program would like at this point to discuss briefly its past involvement in Second Baptist's development plans. In 1982 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the construction of Buffington Towers. Because the project was financed by a HUD insured loan, Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, was applied. Section 106 requires that federal agencies must take into account the effect that a project will have on historic resources and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to conm ent. During the consultation process to mitigate the adverse effect that the Buffington Towers project would have on the MacArthur Park Historic District, parking was discussed. In summary, Second Baptist Church parking space was being sacrificed in order to construct Buffington Towers. The Buffington Towers site had been used for church parking and other parking spaces reserved for the church were being assigned to Buffington Towers in order to meet HUD requirements. Because Second Baptist was recently willing to forego numerous church parking spaces, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program questions the statement by Second Baptist Church that church parking has been a concern for some time. Little Rock's downtown is already blighted with parking lots. It seems that it would be more feasible and practical for Second Baptist to utilize other parking lots in the area and street parking, both of which would be closer to the church than the proposed lot. As for staff parking during the week, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program questions whether the staff has increased significantly enough to warrant an additional forty spaces. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is charged with the responsibility of administering the National Register of Historic Places in Arkansas. Because the proposal may have an adverse effect on the historic resources in the MacArthur Park Historic District, we feel obligated to object. The development of the proposed parking lot would compro- mise the integrity of the Historic District and establish a dangerous precedent within the area. The National Register criteria describes a district as, "...a geographically defined area, urban or rural, possession a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development." In evaluating a district for National Register eligibility, parking lots are considered to be incompatible intrusions, whereas, vacant lots are not con- sidered to detract from the district. Additionally, district boundaries re- flect a cohesiveness and integrity of the entire area, and although the proposed parking lot site is on the edge of the district, the periphery is just as important as the core. By granting a Certificate of Appropriateness in this case, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program feels that the Historic District Commission would be establishing a precedent allowing attrition. Attrition of the integrity of a historic district may occur as the result of the loss of structures or the introduction of incompatible development, such as parking lots. Either can result in the district's integrity being compromised to the extent that the boundaries must be re- defined or the district must be removed from the National Register. These results would have a devastating effect on the MacArthur Park area. Resi- dents would not be afforded the protection or benefits derived from National Register listing and the existence of the local ordinance historic district, and Historic District Commission would be jeopardized. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is compelled to object to the development of the proposed parking lot. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program feels that this type of development would constitute an unnecessary incompatible intrusion into the district and urges the Historic District Commission not to grant a Certi- ficate of Appropriateness. Asked by Ms. Fo ti what standards should be used to judge parking lots, Mr. Stiles replied that he had guidelines and federal standards in his office Add but that they considered all parking lots to be incompatible intrusions into National Register Historic Districts and that the creation of an inordinate number of such parking lots could cause the National Register listing to be resended. There being no other speakers in opposition, Vice-Chairman Worthen asked Mr. Ray if he would like another opportunity to speak in favor of the applicants, as requested. Mr. Ray stated that he was serious when he challenged the Commission to dis- qualify itself from the request, but wished to apologized to each and any member of the Commission in that he did not think they were unable to vote their conscience. He said that the parking lot for Answer Phone, Inc. was not in the back of the building but on Rock Street. He stated that he questioned whether Rock Street was residential in character. He said he was unclear as to whether the previous statements included just the area of Rock between Fifth and Sixth Street, all of Rock within the Historic District or the entire length of Rock Street. He stated that from Markham Street to Eighth Street (6 blocks on each side) along Rock you have sixty -two com- mercial lots and ten residential. If you only took that part of Rock Street within the district, you have thirty -six commercial lots and ten residential. If you only took the one block you have six commercial and six residential lots. Therefore, this is not a primarily residential area. He stated as far as Buffington Towers and all the other comments were concerned that those who spoke in opposition appeared to have inside information that was not shared with him as a member of Second Baptist Church Finance Committee 10M6 and apparently not shared by the Pastor. He felt that was not the point in any case, but rather, that in good faith they ask the Commission to grant the parking lot with the understanding that they would make it as good a 7. parking lot as they can since they had to look at it all day each week. Mr. Worthen asked for any other speakers either in favor of or opposed to the application and, hearing none, requested a motion. Mr. Strauss moved to deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Foti seconded the motion. The motion carried to deny the application by a vote of 3 For - 0 Against - 2 Abstentions. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.