Loading...
HDC_12 07 1983MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1983 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHAIRMAN MR. GOERGE WORTHEN MS. BETH FOTI MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR. MR. BILL KENNEDY, III MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: W. MIKE DOOLEY 1. The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman Mr. George Worthen at 4:00 P.M. and finding a quorum to exist, the Commission moved to accept the Minutes of the previous meeting as recorded. Staff reported that the required notification had been properly mailed to owners of property within the area of influence of all three (3) applications and that proof of said notification had been recieved. The Chairman, Mr. John Jarrard entered and took part in the remainder of the meeting. The first item was described as: Address: 500 E. 9th Street Location: Part of Block 5, Johnsons Addition, Little Rock, AR Owner: Mr. Don Kirkpatrick Request: Six (6) parking spaces on-site Ms. Beth Foti advised the Commission that she would abstain from voting on this request. Mr. Mike Steelman was present representing the owner Mr. Don Kirkpatrick. Mr. Steelman explained that this request was for the construction of six (6) parking spaces on the site. Two (2) of the spaces to be located on the west side of the lot taking access from Commerce Street. Four (4) of the spaces to be located on the east side of the lot taking access from 9th Street. He explained that the owner wanted to use the main structure for two (2) one - bedroom apartments and +2,300 sq. ft. of office space, and the Carriage House as a two-bedroom apartment. The two (2) spaces on the west were to be used by the apartments and the four (4) on the east for the offices. Staff explained that the owner had applied for a conditional use permit to allow the office use of the structure in a residential zone and that the apartments require 3.5 parking spaces and the +2,300 sq. ft. of office space requires an additional 7.5 for a total of eleven (11). The Board of Adjustment will determine the use issue as well as the number of parking spaces. The Historic District Commission should only concern itself with the location and design of the parking and paving plan submitted. Mr. Steelman submitted additional plans showing dimensions of the design of the parking on the site. Staff was asked if there was a standard size for a parking space. They were advised that the standard space was 9'x20' with additional maneuvering area and that this plan did not meet those criteria. It was explained that if the Board of Adjustment were to approve the conditional use permit as submitted then, in effect, they would not only be approving an office use, but also a parking variance from the number and design of parking spaces. Mr. Steelman was asked if the owner had tried to find any additional parking area. He stated that they had contacted the owner to the north where an area had been graveled, which apparently has been where previous occupants had parked, and that that owner had been unwilling to do anything but sell their entire piece of property. Asked about the level of contact, whether it was a phone call or personal visit, Mr. Steelman said he was not sure of the full extent of the negotiations. 2. Mr. Jarrard questioned whether the spaces on the east could be used as a functional parking area. Mr. Steelman agreed it would be more accessible to small cars but that this was the only space available on the lot. Mr. Bill Kennedy asked if there wasn't a danger of people parking in the turn around space which is provided in front of the structure. Mr. Steelman said that he planned for visitors who do not work in the office all day to use the space for in and out parking. Asked if the other autos would be backing out on 9th Street he replied, yes. He explained that he intended to try to provide side by side parking in the west parking area and could stack them two (2) deep if a tenant should own two (2) cars. Asked about the screening on the east property line Mr. Steelman stated that the proposed shrubs would grow and mature to provide an adequate screening buffer and that was the reason for selecting the plant type that was chosen. Mr. Worthen asked if anyone else would like to speak on the request. Ms. Eve Yancy representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated that they felt it would be more appropriate to provide parking at an off-site location. However, if all possible alternative locations are exhausted they would approve the on-site parking with the exception of the paving for the turn around in the front yard. They also felt that provisions should be made for the protection and preservation of any tree adjacent to paving. Ms. Joann Jennings representing the Quapaw Quarter Association gave the following statement approved by their Board of Directors: Although we would very much prefer that parking not be located in the area immediately east of the structure, we acknowledge the problem that faces the owner in providing parking in the immediate area. If parking cannot be secured immediately north or to the east of the structure, the Association is prepared to support the planned parking. The QQA Board is anxious that the Vinsonhaler House be utilized. Since parking is necessary for uses of the structure we would recommend approval. Staff was asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Historic District Commission if they negotiated parking to the north. It was explained that if that parking was necessary and included paving, that the Commission would need to review the design of that parking. Staff was asked if an agree- ment were to be made for parking to the north, and that property were then developed at a later date, would it be necessary for the applicant to come back on this same request. They were advised that the terms of the agreement could state that the negotiated terms could be structured so as to terminate the parking when that property develops. That would mean that the applicant could continue using the property without adequate off-street parking. If they then wished to provide additional parking they would have to get any new design approved by the Historic District Commission. Mr. Jarrard made a motion to deny the parking lot. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion. Mr. Kennedy stated that his was a difficult decision and thought that Mr. Kirkpatrick should be rewarded for the risk he was taking but that the space was simply not available. The turn-around would not be functional and autos backing out on 9th Street would create problems. The turn-around was not attractive visually and that he should try to work out an arrangement with the owners to the north. 3. Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the motion for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness which was approved 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstention. The second item was described as: Address: 506 E. 6th Street Location: Trapnell Block of Stevensons Addition, Little Rock, AR Owner: St. Clair Development Company Request: Twenty-six (26) parking spaces off-site Mr. John Kooistra was present representing the owners of St. Clair Development Company. He explained the company owned the land and structures at 424 and 500 E. 6th and the land at 506 which was the proposed parking lot, but did not own the structure and land at 504 E. 6th which was between the St. Clair build- ing and proposed parking area. Mr. Strauss asked if there were any lighting plans for the parking area and was informed that a regular night light was to be provided. Asked if Mr. Kooistra had reviewed the recommendations from the Quapaw Quarter Association and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, he replied they had read and discussed them prior to the hearing. He stated that the company was on a very tight budget and that a brick fence type entrance might be too expensive but that they might put brick columns on each side of the entrance. There was lengthy discussion as to what type of other fencing was existing and proposed on the north, east and west boundaries of the proposed parking lot. Staff was asked if there were any other regulations regarding fences. It was explained that a 4 ft. opaque screen is required along all sides of a parking lot which abutts a residentially zoned parcel, so that in this case screening would be required on all four (4) sides. Mr. Jarrard commented that even though the applicant has successfully addressed the physical issue of parking they still have not adequately provided for a visual need which exists in the Historic District in terms of screening and landscaping. Mr. Kooistra stated that a cedar fence was proposed on the east and south sides of the property with shrubs on the north and west. He agreed that the owners would do whatever the Landscape Ordinance required because this would be the only way the company could apply for and receive any sort of federal funding. Mr. Worthen asked how many spaces were required for the federal funding and Mr. Kooistra replied that eighteen (18) were required. Mr. Kooistra stated that whatever the Historic District Commission required in the way of design, screening or total numbers of parking spaces would be accepta- ble to the owners. Mr. Jarrard asked if the owners would be in favor of putting a period style light fixture on the site rather than the night light and Mr. Kooistra answered, that they would, if it was not too expensive. He was advised that in addition to the purchase of the light he would only have to pay to provide the power to the pole. 4. Mr. Worthen asked if anyone else would like to speak on the application. Ms. Eve Yancy representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated the following position from that agency: We have reviewed the plans for the St. Clair parking project and recommend that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued with the following provisions: 1.) The prohibition of vehicular access at the north end of site. 2.) The addition of visual screening consisting of a combination of deciduous and evergreen plant material at the north end of the site. Plantings should be of sufficient density and composition to achieve visual screening affect at maturity. 3.) The addition of interior planting beds in the east and west parking aisles. 4.) The substitution of the proposed redwood fence at the south end of the parking lot with a brick wall. The design of the wall should be complementary to the style and form of the St. Clair apartment building. They should be set back to avoid injury to the large willow oak at the south end of the site. 5.) The preservation of the large willow oak at the south end of the site. Specifically new curb cuts should not encroach any further on the tree than do existing cuts. It is the opinion of our agency that with the above provisions, the proposed St. Clair parking lot would be compatible with the surrounding Historic District. Ms. Joann Jennings representing the Quapaw Quarter Association agreed in principal to the conditions previously addressed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and submitted the following prepared statement by the Quapaw Quarter Association Board of Directors: It is our understanding that the City's present ordinance requires sixteen (16) spaces and that eighteen (18) spaces are required by the federal government loan program the owners have applied for. The plans indicate twenty -six (26) spaces and we strongly urge that a maximum of twenty -four (24) spaces be allowed. The twenty -six (26) spaces requested are 9'x20' which is an absolute minimum. Since the plan calls for only 20' of paving in between rows of parking, we feel maneuvering would be most difficult. The twenty -four (24) spaces recommended would mean the spaces would be almost 10' wide which should serve much easier for the tenants to use. We would really much prefer that a maximum of 22 spaces be allowed, each 10'x20'. This would leave approximately 7'x20' on each side for a landscaped island. We also strongly urge that: 1.) A 6' wall of brick of the type used in the St. Clair construc- tion with a cap such as the one at about the same 6' level in 5. St. Clair be erected on either side of the entrance to the park - ing lot; we feel a wood fence would be inappropriate; 2.) Radius of the turnout onto 6th Street out of the lot should be located so as to maintain the existence of the large willow oak located on the east side of the proposed entrance; 3.) Access at the north end of the lot be non-existent; some screen- ing now exists in the form of hedges and trees, but additional dense planting is needed. When asked about the 20' easement which runs from the north of the lot south to 6th Street, the applicant stated that it was a condition of the sale but that he had no objection to fencing the north boundary of the lot to prohibit access through to Capitol Avenue. Mr. Strauss made a motion for approval, conditional upon the provision of a 4' to 6' brick wall at the entrance on the south, the north boundary be planted so as to prohibit access, a maximum of twenty -four (24) spaces and that lighting be of an appropriate nature. Mr. Jarrard seconded the motion with the amendment that landscaped islands be provided on each parking right-of-way. Mr. Kennedy further amended the motion to provide a 4' to 6' cedar fence on the north, east and west boundaries of the lot. Ms. Foti seconded the amendment. Mr. Kennedy made general comments regarding parking lots in the Historic District. He stated that he realized that these additional requirements will add expense to the project but that as a matter of policy the Historic District Commission should look at such proposals with a certain degree of skepticism. He felt in all cases they should be landscaped and dressed up as well as the situation allows and provide for the best possible safety, lighting and beautification elements. He advised that any person who wishes to construct a parking lot in the Historic District be put on notice that these issues will be addressed. Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the amendment to the motion which passed 4 for, 1 against (Mr. Strauss). Mr. Worthen asked for a vote on the original motion with the amendment which passed 5 for, 0 against. The third item was described as: Address: 915 S. Cumberland Location: In lots 4 and 5, Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, AR Owner: Mr. Gus Walton Request: Addition onto rear of existing building Mr. Worthen explained that he was indirectly related to the applicant and if anyone had a concern about any potential or conceived conflict of interest pertaining to the application that he would step down and abstain from deliber- ation of the issue. Hearing none, the public hearing proceeded as Mr. Gus Walton, the owner, intro- duced his planner Mr. Jim Moses and architect Mr. Rick Redden. Mr. Redden explained the architectural style and the building materials to be used on the addition, which were the same material and style of the original building. He showed how the same roof pitch and floor level would be con- tinued throughout the proposed addition as well as the window placement and exterior trim. 6. Asked about the destiny of the two (2) major trees located in the rear yard, Mr. Redden advised that they would both remain in place. Mr. Jarrard asked about the provision of parking for the expansion and Mr. Redden replied that they have an arrangement with the Knights of Columbus to use nine (9) parking spaces and that the four (4) provided on-site are the same as previously existed. He explained that the addition was not for additional employees but to make more space for those currently working at Poe Travel Agency. He added that the Knights of Columbus, being a non-profit organization, could not lease the space but would designate an area for the proposed use. Mr. Worthen asked if anyone else would like to speak on the application. Ms. Eve Yancy representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated that; in their opinion the design of the proposed addition is compatible with that of the original building and is located so as not to be a visual intrusion in the surrounding neighborhood. In light of these considerations they recommend that the project be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Joann Jennings representing the Quapaw Quarter Association stated that it was the recommendation of their Board of Directors that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued in light of the determination that the proposed addition does not detract from the appearance or integrity of the district. The addition does not affect the row (909, 913 and 923 Cumberland) that was ranked by the Association as having Priority I architectural significance. Further, it is their feeling that Poe Travel, by locating its office on Cumberland, has contributed to the revitalization of downtown and added to the stability of Cumberland Street. Mr. Jarrard expressed his concern over this type of non permanent parking arrangement and stated that parking problems in the Historic District and surrounding areas should be addressed by an appropriate board who could take some policy action on the situation. Mr. Kennedy made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Jarrard seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 for, 0 against. Advised that there was no further business to be conducted at this meeting, Mr. Worthen adjourned at 5:15 P.M. WMD /se