Loading...
HDC_09 03 1998City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 3 SEPTEMBER 1998 LRHDC MEETING MINUTES Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice Chair Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Staff Present: V.Anne Guthrie Bruce Moore Anthony Black Guests: Rick Purifoy, Code Enforcement Nine residents of the historic district The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken and as all commissioners were present, there was a quorum. Prior to the agenda business, Mayor Dailey asked to address the LRHDC. He wanted specifically to comment on the Second Baptist Church's Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application, which is the construction of a 35-space parking lot in the 600 block of Cumberland and Rock streets. The Mayor stated that he is interested in the redevelopment of the city's central business district and its downtown neighborhoods. In addressing redevelopment initiatives, the Mayor said that there needs to be a balance that attempts to accommodate downtown partners with the issues of neighborhood concern. He stated that instead of denying the application, he hoped that the LRHDC will work to accommodate the parking lot application and make it a palpable for the historic district. There is a way to bring the two sides together and to satisfy the request so that it fits the needs of a growing downtown church and the neighborhood. There may be other approaches to a parking lot (i.e., subterranean with playground on top) in an historic district, but the issue is keeping these institutions downtown so they don't move west, as many have done. He thanked the LRHDC for the opportunity to address. them at the public hearing. The minutes from the previous meeting were amended and approved. The first COA application for consideration was: Applicant: Betty Deislinger Address: 1000 Rock Street Request: Rehabilitate structure's exterior and interior Prior to the presentation, Charles Marratt recused himself from the discussion of the application as his company handled the house. The applicant presented the plans to rehabilitate the 1876 structure. A listing of the proposed scope of work included several items: roof repair; wooden siding on the rear; dormer repair in the rear; replacement of aluminum windows on the north and east elevations with more appropriate windows of Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 2 the period (and as copying Becky Witsell's studio at 1011 Scott,) and on the east, the replacement of the additional door with an appropriate window; rehabilitation of the front porch (railing, columns, flooring, steps, etc); removal of permastone siding; and installation of storm windows for energy and security purposes. The rehab plans were detailed, and while there is no time table for the work, it is being prioritized. Greer asked about the st�nding seamed metal roof that was applied recently on the structure's west elevation; ,the applicant stated that it replaced an old and leaking metal roof, and the replacement is of good quality. The western-most addition on the rear is rotten, is not original to the house and plans are to remove it. Discussion focused on the west dormer, which in poor condition and an outbuilding along the alley, which is slated for removal. Storm windows were discussed as to the type; there has been no decision as to the selection, type, color, etc. except what is recommended by the design guidelines. Greer stated that instead of anodized aluminum storm windows, it should be baked enamel aluminum windows. Staff recommendations were read into the record. The applicant was asked if the structure was single-family --two meters were installed to accommodate a small apartment in the southwest section of the structure with entry gained from the rear. A motion was made that the application be approved (according to the staff recommendations) with conditions and the storm window changes. Greer stated that the drawing for the windows on the east elevation did not have sufficient detail for approval and that a reference be made to the Bragg cottage on Scott Street for the approval and duplication of the windows. He also expressed concern with the back porch, due to its high visibility on a corner, and recommended that staff review the plans for the rear addition improvements. A vote was taken and the application was unanimously approved with conditions. Marratt rejoined the LRHGC meeting after the vote. The second application was: Applicant: Bob Kennedy Address: 514 East 9th Street Request: Rehabilitate multiple-family structure's exterior and interior The applicant presented the proposed work. A listing of the proposed work included the following: roof repair; replace rotten front porch decking; remove rotten fascia and soffit; remove siding on rear additions; repair windows, replace floor joists; install missing railing; install new water lines; remove southeast chimney and rear storage outbuilding. He presented the items individually and in more detail, but stated that he had decided to take off the outbuilding's demolition from the listing and to retain the southeast chimney. Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 3 There was discussion regarding the scope of the work, the lack of details and the applicant's understanding of the proposed work. The applicant is doing the majority of the work himself, especially the interior, but he had hired a contractor for the new roof and porch decking. Marratt expressed his concern about several items, such as the new porch decking, foundation problems and the chimney. Greer asked how many apartments were propos�d --three and the applicant would occupy two. The issue of parking and its access for the apartments was discussed. The subject property does not have on-site, off-street parking, and future tenants will use the interior parking on property not owned by the applicant. The applicant owns property at 511 E. 8th Street (behind the subject property on the same block) and the tenants of the 9th Street apartments would park in the same location. There is an interior area in the middle of the block, which is utilized for parking by several apartments on the block. This interior area, due to the lay-out, is owned by various people; there has been an understood agreement that the tenants may park in the area. Access to the interior parking is a problem especially for the apartments facing 9th, and the subject property in particular as there is no driveway or entry to the interior parking from 9th. Staff stated that zoning was consulted to ensure that compliance with parking requirements was met; the subject property is a nonconforming use and because the owner is decreasing the density of the structures, the parking requirements are met. Greer opened the discussion of the application to the floor. An adjacent property owner, Randy Morning, introduced himself and stated that he was concerned about the apartments. He stated that the previous tenants of the apartments had a complete disregard for adjacent property. He had invested in and rehabbed a duplex east of the subject property and is concerned that tenants of the subject property will abuse his property, its front yard, driveway and off-street parking. Using the abstract, Morning pointed out the property ownership, the interior use of the block for parking, etc. He also talked about fencing his property to minimize pedestrian traffic Gordon asked the applicant questions about the work and when he anticipated the completion date --October 1. Marratt emphasized the close proximity of structures on 9th and how rehab projects easily affect adjacent structures, especially with such close setbacks. He expressed reservations about the scope of work. Jay Core, a property owner on the west (ca. 1890s apartments), expressed his concern about the quality of rehab work. He stated that Kennedy's rental property on E. 8th is not in good condition. If quality of workmanship of a rehab project is lacking, then the quality of tenants will reflect that. The subject property is one of the block's finest structure, and he is concerned about it lacking the quality of work required of such a structure, especially with the problems that it appears to have. Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 4 Greer asked Black about the LRHDC's charge in regard to parking requirements for apartments that are being rehabbed. He reiterated what was stated earlier about the structure being nonconforming and meeting the regulations. Gordon stated that the structure needs to be protected, and there is neighborhood concern about the quality of rehab work. Kennedy's lawyer, Mosely, stated that the owner, contractor and neighbors need to get together to review the plans and work. Greer stated that the listing of proposed work is not detailed enough; each item should be described in greater detail as to allow more information about the rehab work. Marratt stated that additional research would answer some of the questions that the neighbors and LRHDC have regarding the scope of work being sympathetic to the architectural integrity of the structure. He also recommended that an architect be consulted for the design of the exterior rehab work. Carol Zoeller, a neighoring property owner, expressed concern about the interior lot's lack of maintenance by the applicant and wanted assurance that the 9th Street property would not be maintained in the same fashion. Morning stated concern as well about the debris in the subject property's outbuilding that needs to be removed. Marratt asked for a code enforcement perspective about the subject property. Purifoy stated that the property is not listed as unsafe, and he has not performed a rental inspection. The property owner is under a time limit to rehab the property within six months. Marratt made a motion that the application be deferred for thirty (30) days and that a more detailed plan be presented of the exterior work at the next meeting. A building permit cannot be issued, but interior work may continue. The vote was unanimous that the application be deferred for 30 days. A letter from staff will delineate what the applicant is able to do during the interim period. The third application considered was: Applicant: Second Baptist Church Address: 619 Cumberland and 618 Rock streets Request: Construction of 35-space parking lot This COA had been deferred from the August meeting, at the applicant's request. Judy Henry, a lawyer and a member of the congregation, introduced herself, Ray Higgins (pastor), Steve Elliott (architect) and Lendall Lay. She stated that the congregation has been downtown since 1884 and is a good neighbor to the area and the historic district. The church's concern with urban issues is demonstrated by its involvement in the Buffington retirement facility, the church's daycare, Stewpot and its purchase of Second Place, which is located within the designated historic district. The applicant is asking the LRHDC for a parking lot; their passion for the parking lot relates to people, which is how the church is able to grow; and they are experiencing Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 5 substantial growth. She presented an overview of the church, its growth, needs and gave numbers for attendance of the two services the previous Sunday; She stated that the staff report was incorrect in terms of the number of parking lot spaces the church presently has on the east side of Cumberland (12 not 15) and the Sunday morning survey of church parking, which was an informal survey performed by staff on four different Sundays. Also, she added that the number of spaces available to the church, while owned by them, are leased to Buffington (southwest corner of 7th and Cumberland); also the church owns the parking lot on the south side of 8th. The report mentions the three area churches but does not mention the competition for parking. Addressing the church's concern for safety, she stated that there is a safety monster in downtown (while parked on the street, her car was broken into). If safe parking cannot be provided by the church, they cannot attract new members. Many members have moved to other churches due to lack of safety and on-street parking. With the proposed lot, the church hopes to cure the safety issue by controlling its safety and hiring off-duty officers. Other alternatives for off-street parking in a two-block area has been discussed by the church, but their proposal, while expensive, is well designed. The congregation has a commitment to downtown and wants to stay in its location, so why not let them develop the subject property as they want. The only alterative for the proposed lot is to leave it vacant as it is, but they have problems such as deserted vehicles parked on the lot. Henry presented an overview of the parking lot's site plan, which exceeds landscape requirements. She referenced an earlier meeting in the Mayor's office when church members met with staff and the property owner of Answerphone. She emphasized that the church will adapt its plans to whatever is needed or wanted. Due to work responsibilities, David Hale, property owner of 623 Rock, stated that he is very involved with downtown and the role that churches play in the area. He stated that he is opposed to the request and disagrees with the church's statement that they have no parking alternative in order to meet growing needs. He has been encouraged about the number of rehab projects in the neighborhood, most of which have been residential. It is a fragile neighborhood due to its close proximity to downtown and to construct a parking lot on the proposed site would make the area vulnerable to encroachment. He added that perhaps another use would be more appropriate for the site or another area should be considered for parking. The safety issue is not a justification for a parking lot and 35 spaces does not serve the needs of a growing congregation. He stated that a parking lot across the street from his home would devalue his property, the area's and is not a good solution for the neighborhood. Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 6 Henry responded to Hale's comments. She said the property was a gift and that a parking lot is the best use for the property; they have looked at other property but nothing is available. She contested his statement that the area is primarily residential. The architect presented the site plan and detailed particular aspects: the single entry, fence height, construction materials, etc. Discussion focused on safety by design and how the materials and design affect safety and the perception of safety. Henry stated that the parking lot would not be used by older members but by its younger members. On-street parking is a problem for the congregation and some have left because of it. Marratt stated that the church would be better served if they participated with the neighbors to formulate a consensus as to the use of the subject property. The churches have helped downtown maintain its properties; it would be helpful if a compromise could be worked out the residents. Greer asked whether the applicant had other representatives to speak in favor of the application request; there were none. The floor was opened then to opposition. Ray Bolinger, property owner at 609 Rock, stated that he liked the subject lot vacant and wanted it to remain that way; he did add that sometimes the lot is not maintained. Jean Ann Phillips, of the same address, stated that she has several concerns and questions about the request: the distance from the church to the subject property; who would use the lot when not used by the church; being a good neighbor; the lot being used as overflow for the church at times when the area and street are normally quiet; the residential area and character, though mostly apartments; she has not seen an abandoned car on the lot; the lot is used as an open area by neighbors. She concluded by saying that she doesn't want a parking lot across the street from her home Henry was given the opportunity to respond to the above as a rebuttal. She stated that they own the property and ought to be able to use it as they want. Katherine Matthews, property owner of the apartments on the subject block, stated that she was has been an owner since 1983 and has never been approached by the church as to their intentions or in an effort to work with property owners. She is opposed to the use of a parking lot and asked whether they had looked at other properties. There was discussion about area off-street parking and other alternatives. Gordon stated that it was not the task of the LRHDC to find alternatives for the applicant, but to decide whether the parking lot at this location is an appropriate use in the historic district. Michael Preble, president of the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association, stated that he had submitted a letter to the LRHDC against the application request and referenced his letter for the various reasons. He stated that there are better choices for a parking lot; that 35 spaces can be found elsewhere; that the intersection at 6th and Cumberland Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 7 has all four corners for surface parking; and that it is necessary to balance the historic district needs with institutions' needs. Henry made a rebuttal by stating that she had not received a copy of Preble's letter before the meeting. She also mentioned that the Arkansas Arts Center had applied to the LRHDC for a parking lot recently and it was approved (NOTE: parking was a part of the AAC's May 1998 request for .expansion). Mike Helms, owner of 620 Rock, stated that a parking lot would not improve his property value. He is not impressed with how the subject vacant lot has been maintained as there is often trash and is not mowed. Asked whether he would have bought his property (office & apartments) if there was a parking lot on the proposed lot, he replied that he would not and that his tenants do not want it used as a parking lot. In terms of alternatives for the subject property, Henry stated that the lot was a gift and they will not sell it even though that is not part of the deed. The church has to have the lot as parking. Larry Gimnich, property owner of 624 Rock, stated he moved into the area with his family and would like to see the area remain residential. He is opposed to the parking lot and asked where it would end if, in the future, more church parking is needed. He was asked if his decision to buy his property would have been impacted if the subject property were a parking lot --yes. He added that the involved parties need to sit down as neighbors and discuss it informally. The balance of land uses (commercial, institutional, residential and parking) needs to be considered for the area. Henry was given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal and stated that the reason the church wants to construct' the parking lot is to bring more families into the church. Families don't want to walk from the parking garage on Scott to the church. She reemphasized that there �re no adequate choices for a parking lot in another location. Greer asked whether anyone else wanted to speak for or against the request. As there were none, Henry clarified the issue of marking the exhibits, submitting the required notices, etc. There was a call for a motion. Gardner asked about the maintenance of the lot in its present condition as a vacant lot as well as with its proposed use as a parking lot. Henry stated the maintenance of the lot is by a volunteer group; she also stated that a sprinkler system would be installed. Gardner commented that with the emphasis on church growth that the 35 parking spaces would not satisfy the church's growing needs. Henry stated that most people do not want to walk great distance to the church's front door. Gardner asked whether, if the request for a parking lot was approved, there were plans to rent the spaces out as Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 8 done with their other two parking lots; Henry stated that she did not know whether the subject property would ever be rented out. Greer stated that the LRHDC may approve the application, approve with conditions or deny the application (Note: the applicant had verbally amended the request to include three conditions). Gardener made a motion that the application be approved with the three amendments: include an irrigation system, revise the surfacing materials and the accommodation of green space for the trees on the north. As there was no second, the motion failed. Marratt made a motion that the application be denied and Gordon seconded the motion, adding that surface parking lots are detrimental to our downtown. The vote was unanimous to deny the application. The LRHDC adjourned at 8:00 p.m.