Loading...
HDC_06 03 1999City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 3 JUNE MEETING (This meeting is the first of the regularly scheduled meetings) MINUTES Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Commissioner Absent: Howard H. Gordon Staff: V.Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Margi Gant The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken, and as there was a quorum, minutes from two previous meetings (8 and 15 April) were approved. The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was: Applicant: Robert Traylor Address: 1407 Rock Street Request: Demolition of structure due to tornado damage The property owner presented the support documentation of photographs; he stated that the insurance company's estimated cost for rehabilitating the 1,000 square feet structure was between $45-50,000. The estimates were made after the tornado; however, by not securing the structure from the weather for over four months (no roof, windows, etc.), the costs are probably higher. Also as an unsecured structure, it is unsafe. It was listed as destroyed on two of the three damage assessments; it was added to the list of structures to be condemned by city ordinance. The subject structure was listed on the architectural survey as contributing (ca. 1880) Queen Anne with Colonial Revival additions. Staff recommendation is to approve the request for demolition on condition that the Quapaw Quarter Association (QQA) be notified of possible salvage material. Staff presented an update of the city demolition of four approved structures on this block. There was a motion to approve the request for demolition as presented, and the vote was unanimous. The second COA application was: Applicant: John J. Jarrard, agent Address: 1104 -1112 Rock Street Request: Demolition of garage & portions of structure and new construction of garage & privacy fence on perimeter of two lots Jarrard, as the owner's agent and architect, presented the application and a site plan of the two properties. The demolition of the garage and portions of the rear of the structure and new construction of a garage is for 1104 Rock; the perimeter privacy fence is for the two lots. The Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 June 1999 Minutes, Page 2 circa 1920s-30s garage is in poor condition and 2/3 of it is gone due to termites. The garage and rear addition are in poor condition and have been inspected by an architect, contractor and engineer. The new construction of a two-car garage has wooden siding and requires a variance for rear yard setback (it has two bays on the west elevation opening onto the alley). The subject property is in the middle of the block, and the proposed fence in the rear and side yards cannot be seen from Rock. The fence height is 8' and requires a height variance from the Board of Adjustment. Proposed roofing material for the new garage was composition shingle, but after plans were submitted, the owners decided that corrugated metal would be more appropriate. Staff recommendation was to approve the COA request with two conditions: that the variances for setbacks and fence height be approved by the ZBA and that should be the project's scope change, staff will be notified and appropriate action taken. There was a motion to approve the COA application with the amendment of the garage roofing material (changed to corrugated metal). The motion was approved unanimously. Under new and old business, the non-compliance of approved CO As was discussed, specifically for the properties at 514 East 9th and 902 Cumberland. Staff summarized the recent actions: that the requested letters for, and reviewed by, the LRHDC went out to the two property owners. A similar letter was mailed to the QQA, as they did not follow procedures for obtaining a building permit, either through administrative approval or appearing before the LRHDC. The two owners of 514 East 9th and 902 Cumberland were asked to either write a letter explaining their actions (i.e., why they did not follow the COA and installed materials contrary to what was approved) or appear at the June meeting. Of the two, only the representative of 902 Cumberland (Graves Litho) responded; two letters were written in April and May explaining why they did not install the approved glass blocks on the north elevation's entry. Only this entry, which was being enclosed, was to have glass blocks, and the remainder were insulated bronze windows. Instead of glass blocks for the north entry, they thought the bronze windows looked better and would be more uniform and consistent. Staff talked with Graves Litho on more than one occasion and had several phone conversations with their representative regarding the installment of the windows. The representative made it clear, on more than one occasion, that the mistake was an honest one, of not knowing that he should have notified the LRHDC of the changes. He is eager to work with the LRHDC and will attend the July meeting; he could not attend in June as he had business outside the state. For 514 East 9th, the property owner called on two occasions and talked with staff. While having drawings, as requested by the LRHDC at an earlier meeting, the end product is not as drawn and has not complied with the design, scale, materials, etc. He has an obligation as owner of a historic structure in a historic district to comply with design guidelines and what was approved. Two adjacent property owners, Core and Morning were present at the meeting and were given the opportunity to address their concerns about 514 E. 9th. Core stated that his property had problems with the discarded roofing materials from the subject property on his roof; the removal of gutters from the subject property had caused drainage problems (the sideyard setbacks are close); and the issue of parking in the rear of the buildings, or in the middle of the Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 June 1999 Minutes, Page 3 block, has continued to be a problem. The front porch and its subsequent alterations and repairs (balustrade, railings, skirt, etc.) were done poorly. The state preservation program has a facade easement on the subject structure; the owner was notified by mail but has not responded (per AHPP's conversation). There was discussion of state authority with the facade easement and its enforcement capabilities. Morning's concern is that the tenants of 514 E. 9th trespass on his property on the east and in the rear of the structures, or the interior of the block. The issue of trespassing and lack of working with involved properties is a concern of the adjacent property owners. Also discussed was whether a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was required for 514 E. 9th, since it had been vacant for over a year and it is apartments; also the question of the property complying with code was discussed. It was decided that staff, as instructed by the LRHDC, would write another letter to the owners of the two subject properties. For 514 East 9th: a stop-work order due to non-compliance with COA would be issued; have the code enforcement officer cite the owner for non-compliance; notify housing of residents, code, apartment inspection to ensure that the building has the required permits, etc. for occupancy. Regarding 902 Cumberland: the representative for Graves Litho will be written and asked to appear before LRHDC in July. There was discussion of enforcement of design, work, etc. in the historic district and compliance with approved COAs. The issue of design for historic structures is one of the LRHDC's primary responsibility. It is important that owners and applicants know the role and responsibility of the LRHDC and its parameters for review consideration. The issue of QQA not obtaining a COA or LRHDC approval for a building permit prior to work was discussed. While QQA did receive approval by the CZD for a permit in February, they did not obtain LRHDC approval. Staff had talked with the director about the process, provided a copy of the design guidelines, application, etc. for informational purposes. There were a couple of phone conversations about the process. For QQA, it is important that they set an example by following the procedures and obtaining the necessary approvals. One letter in May had been sent to QQA, but there had been no formal response, only a phone conversation with staff. Another letter, as instructed by LRHDC, should be written to QQA that requires a response. With the role that QQA plays in the neighborhood and among preservationists, it is imperative that they obtain the necessary permission and permits prior to repair or rehabilitation work. There was some discussion about the Donaghey Building on Main Street and its proposed demolition. The expiration of two commissioners' terms, that of Greer's as architect and of Marratt's as property owner, was reviewed. Greer has submitted a letter asking for reappointment, but Marratt has not decided. One commissioner's position, that of resident and property owner, is available as Gardner recently bought a new house and moved out of the historic district after last summer's fire at the Parkview condos. The condos are on the market to be sold, and there may be a closing on them in the near future. As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 6:20 p.m.