Loading...
HDC_01 21 1999City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 21 JANUARY 1999 MEETING (The regularly scheduled meeting of 7 January was canceled due to no quorum) MINUTES Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice Chair Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Guests: Cathy Slater, Missy McSwain, Randy Jeffery (all AHPP staff) The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order and roll call was taken. As there was a quorum, the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. The sole COA application for consideration was: Applicant: Curran Hall, City of Little Rock Address: 615 E. Capitol Avenue Request: Demolition of selected outbuildings and partial stabilization Commissioner Greer recused himself from the meeting and turned the chair over to Gordon. Charles Witsell, project architect, stated that there are two issues before the LRHDC: demolition of selected outbuildings and windows on the west elevation. He presented a drawing of Curran Hall ( ca. 1843 ), its site and outbuildings. The drawing reflected the research on the structure, documenting its structural improvements and evolution of the site. Witsell detailed the site, its history and presented the particular outbuildings to be removed. The four outbuildings to be demolished are: the 1962 carport on the east; the 1917 garage on the southeast; the 1970 motor house on the southwest; and the 1920s storage shed on the west. It is recommended that the Visitor's Center office be detached from the historic structure to serve as offices and for interpretation as an outbuilding. Curran's original kitchen was detached, two­- storied with a hipped roof and exterior gallery; this design was standard for kitchens in the 1840s. Witsell stressed the need for archaeological research to confirm the location, assess its construction and provide documentation for one of the city's few extant pre-Civil War houses. Curran has a central hall and is two rooms deep on both the east and west sides; the rooms on the west were more formal due to the mantels, baseboards, etc. There was a gallery on the south, or rear, which was later enclosed. Few major structural alterations detract from the its architectural significance; however, Witsell detailed Curran's structural condition as precarious as the problems are severe and went unnoticed and unrepaired for decades. While the east elevation brick wall collapsed years ago, it is the west elevation's standing wall that is in serious condition; its foundation and subsequent structural skeleton is in the same condition of the east wall prior to its collapse. The bid documents and plans need to depict how the western wall will be stabilized and subsequently interpreted. Little Rock Historic District Commission 21 January 1999 Minutes, Page 2 Research on the structure's openings, or windows, reveals that those on the north, or front, are original; those on the west were installed circa 1890s and early 1900s. It is proposed that the two western rooms serve as a formal setting for city functions while those on the east serve as exhibition areas. A decision needs to be made whether to go for the earlier configuration of the structure or to interpret its evolution, with the additions, various sized windows, etc. Another words, there would be no windows on the west if the structure were rehabbed and interpreted at its circa 1840s appearance. The issue before the LRHDC is how the east and west elevations will be reconstructed and how the structure will be interpreted. Marratt asked questions regarding the project's foundation, roof, floors, etc. It was noted that earlier that same day, there was a meeting at Witsell's office to discuss the details, research and the need to address the window placement issue. Gardner made a motion that the COA application be approved as presented and with staff recommendations. The COA request to selectively demolish particular outbuildings and to stabilize Curran Hall, resolving especially its eastern and western walls as presented, was unanimously approved. Another agenda item was the neighborhood response to Kennedy's COA request at 514 East 9th Street. There were several neighborhood concerns about the project. A letter from the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association president expressed disappointment with LRHDC's approval of the application, which has several unresolved problems. Adjacent property owner, Jay Core, was present to express his disapproval with the project. Marratt disagreed with the opinion from the City Attorney's office, that it was not within the LRHDC's purview to consider parking for apartments, as in the 9th Street rehab project; he noted several properties in the historic district where off-street parking was required. To allow a multi-family project with no consideration given to parking falls short of his expectations, his previous experience before the LRHDC and other rehab projects in the district. Marratt requested that evidence be produced by the City Attorney's office confirming that the LRHDC has no jurisdiction in parking for apartments. Gordon asked that something in writing be produced that addresses parking, not only in this particular instance as an accessory use, but in the general context of the LRHDC' s review. Core stated his concern regarding the applicant's request and questioned the applicant's ability to carry out the work and follow the architectural plans. He asked if and how the applicant is required to adhere to the approved plans; i.e., the LRHDC cannot dictate quality of work. Discussion focused on the property, its request and the level of review to hold the applicant to in terms of rehabilitation, facade appearance, etc. Black noted that the parking issue would be addressed by Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator, at the next meeting to clarify the parking issue for the historic district. As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 6:30 p.m.