Loading...
HDC_08 13 2019Page 1 of 34 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES OF RECONVENED MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2019 Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 5:00 p.m. Human Resources Training Room, West Wing City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Lauren Frederick Robert Hodge Frances McSwain Members Absent: Amber Jones Dale Pekar City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Stephan McAteer Tim Giattina Cindy Pruitt Wendell Kinzler Patricia Blick Walter Malone Laine Harber Cleveland Thomas Approval of Minutes There were no minutes presented to approve. Chair Holder stated that they would start with the two deferred items first. Page 2 of 34 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.”A”. DATE: August 12, 2019 APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs ADDRESS: 1419 S Commerce FILE NUMBER: HDC18-030 COA REQUEST: Demolition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1419 S Commerce. The property’s legal description is “Lot 5, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1886. The 2006 survey form states: “This simple early Colonial Revival style structure with asymmetrical front and porch between front and side wing. Front porch has been rebuilt. Typical bay window and window shutters reflect style of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Demolition of the structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 27, 1998, a COC was approved and issued to Thomas Inner City for maintenance on the outside and interior rehab. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition. The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the dist rict should be reviewed carefully. Location of Project Page 3 of 34 The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission. The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last twenty years. The current owner has owned the building since 1998. A building permit was issued in 2001 for rehab, which expired with no inspections or approvals issued. On or about September 9, 2005, a stop work order was issued for installation of new windows and siding without HDC approval or building permits. A permit was issued for rehab on March 29, 2006 for maintenance but expired with no inspections or approvals issued. It is unsure if the work was started on the 2006 permit. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since January 24, 2012. The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternat ive that will be discussed farther along in the report. All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000. The property at 1419 Commerce is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property was income producing. The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner. 1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 4 of 34 The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its architectural integrity although it is in need of repair. The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property has been redeemed for back taxes in 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and again in 2018. At the sale in early 2018, there was a bid on the property of $7,400. That sale was not completed since the owner redeemed the property by paying the back taxes and fees of $2,791. The bid of $7,400 proves that a private individual was interested in the property enough to win the bid on the property. This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may or may not remove any existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to occupy the structure for their personal use. Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data. If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $5,500 for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed. Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove that there is a market for housing in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the item. He stated there was $423 in outstanding liens on the property now. They have been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from the current owners. It has been on the Unsafe Vacant UV list since 2012. Appearing in front of the HDC is the first step in the demolition process. He spoke of the alternative processes available. If the owner has intent to rehab the structure, the owner needs to meet with the Director of the Housing Department and provide a detailed scope of work and a timeline on when the work will be completed. They will need to Page 5 of 34 have proof of financial capacity to finish the project. A 90 day “bring to code” building permit is issued and Staff follows up after 90 days to see how much work has been done. The Housing department may extend the “bring to code” permit for additional 90 day periods. Chair Ted Holder asked if this was a finish in 90 days or just start in 90 days permit. Mr. Garland said it was to make progress on the rehab. He also stated that they take lots of photos during the project to document the building activities. Cleveland Thomas, the owner of the house, said that the tornado of 1999 tore up the house. He has had some hardship rehabbing the house. The loves the structure and does not want it to be torn down. People have wanted to buy the house in the past, but the buyer fell through. Regions Bank has approved a $95,000 loan on the house but he had not found a contractor to do it for that price. He does not have any additional money to put towards the renovation of the house. He obtained a letter from a person that was willing to buy the house. He said he would sell the house. Chair Ted Holder asked if he considered donating it to the City Land Bank. Mr. Thomas replied that he wanted the house rehabbed and that he has had trouble with homeless people. Chair Holder reiterated that Mr. Thomas would like to rehab but does not have a contractor. He continued and asked what would happen if the time expires and he cannot sell it, it could be torn down. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked why he had not put up a for sale sign on the property. Mr. Thomas said that he has in the past but it was taken down. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be explored before the house is demolished. She shared a metaphor of a quilt where certain pieces were missing where the quilt is the neighborhood and individual houses were pieces of the quilt. The quilt and the neighborhood cannot stay together if there are too many missing pieces. Gabe Holstrum, 2102 Louisiana, stated that he was the person that was the $7400 bidder at the tax sale. He is interested in buying it if it is to be sold. He continued that three buyers in the audience should encourage the owner to sell. Lindsey Boerner, 401 E Daisy Bates, asked the commission to defer the application in order to allow rehab of the structure to occur. She did not want it torn down and welcomes the opportunity for a new family to move into the neighborhood. Mr. Minyard stated that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the rehabilitation process. Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to defer with Staff conditions. Commissioner Frances McSwain seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). STAFF UPDATE: In the almost six months since the last hearing on this item, the property owner has not contacted City Staff to discuss the property. A “For Sale” sign was not on the property at the time of this writing and Staff has not observed one there in the past. A check of the Tax Page 6 of 34 Assessor’s website and the County Treasurer’s office show that the property is still in the ownership of Cleveland Odell Thomas, hence not sold or donated to the Landbank. A building permit has not been sought to repair the property. Mr. Thomas has not completed nor initiated any of the three conditions in the approved motion since the last hearing. Staff notified the property owners in the area of influence again with certified return receipt letters on May 29th (shown on page 8 and 9 of this report) along with the “Notice of Public Hearing” Form. The letter shown on page 10 was sent both certified return receipt and plain envelope US mail. Each of the letters was mailed to all three known addresses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2019 The applicant, Ed Garland, of Housing and Neighborhood Programs was not present. According to the Bylaws, Article V E 9., “The applicant of each item docketed shall be present or represented at the meeting and prepared to discuss the request.” Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked Sherri Latimer if she interpreted that to mean the applicant must be present. She responded yes. A motion was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell to defer the item until the July 8, 2019 hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2019 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Rick Purifoy, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, represented that department in the hearing. He submitted structural photos taken in 2018 of the roofs, the porch which is collapsing, and unsound walls. Chair Ted Holder made the point that when buildings are not in the dry, all of the flooring and joists go to mush. Mr. Purifoy stated that this was the case here. Chair Holder referred to the second guideline that if there is severe t o irreparable deterioration of a building. It is his opinion that it is going to cost more to rehab the structure than it is worth. He does not believe it is economically feasible. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if the owner was here tonight. The response was yes. Commissioner Frances (Missy) McSwain asked if there was more that 50% of the structure gone. Mr. Purifoy replied yes and that it was almost a total rebuild. He has watched the building decline over the years. The Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs recommendation is to demolish. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if a person could get hurt. Mr. Purifoy said that they could with boards falling from above. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that if they entered the building, they may fall through the floor into the crawl space. Commissioner Hodge asked if there were lots of holes in the building. Mr. Purifoy stated that there were lots in the roof. Page 7 of 34 Cleveland Thomas, the owner, stated that he was in the building on Saturday. T he floor has deteriorated in places. He said that he had $175,000 from his 401k for fund the renovation. He has contacted a contractor but it may be too late for the house but he has borrowed the money already. Commissioner Frederick asked when he borrowed the money. Mr. Thomas said twenty-two days ago. There was a discussion between the applicant and Commissioner Hodge on the financial aspects of the money from his 401k. Commissioner McSwain stated there is a lot of trash that has been pulled out of the house and apparently had been burned at the curb. Mr. Thomas said that the house had been cleaned out. Mr. Thomas has a contract to fix the front porch but has not signed the contract yet. He did have to call the police on a squatter at the property. Commissioner Frederick stated that the property was at the Land Commissioners last year for a sale for back taxes. Mr. Thomas said that his land was worth $35,000 dollars. Commissioner McSwain stated that he has said that he borrowed money last month and had a contract for repair. Mr. Thomas handed her a copy of the contract. Vice Chair Russell looked at the contract and noted it was not signed. He reiterated the five points in the Guidelines for demolition and stressed the Public Safety and Welfare aspects. Chris Fletcher stated that Mr. Thomas should be given more time. Vice Chair Russell restated the health and safety concerns of the property. Mr. Fletcher commented that a permit could be issued for the porch only. Mr. Thomas stated that he should be given more time. Vice Chair Russell stated again the health and safety concerns. Paul Dodds of Urban Frontier stated that he has rehabbed more than 15 houses in the Central High neighborhood. HE talked with Mr. Thomas after the last meeting and he had fixed houses worse than this one. He said that the 50% rule for rehab to get state income tax credits may not apply in this case. Commissioner McSwain stated that is was more than 50% of new materials. Mr. Dodds asked that Mr. Thomas be given more time and a chance to rehab the house. He stated that he should do a Part One of the tax credit paperwork. If he has finding, he should be able to start. He said the City has a history of punishing houses instead of punishing owners. The City has the authority to issue fines but the city does not use that authority. Jim Rule said that he used to own 1419 Commerce in the 1970’s. He was saddened by the gradual degrading of the house. He said that the house should be brought back to life. Patricia Blick, QQA Director, stated they were opposed to demolition. She quoted the Guidelines for demolition and stated that in Number 1, it requires a report commissioned by and accepted by the HDC. She wanted to know if the report was commissioned and if she could have a copy of it. Commissioner McSwain asked if the QQA would be willing to assist the owner through the process. She also asked if it were deferred, what the timeline would be. Ms. Blick stated that the timeline should be twelve months from the first hearing (December 2018). Commissioner McSwain asked what we should expect from Mr. Thomas in that time. Ms. Blick Page 8 of 34 said that there should be a Part 1 and 2 in 60 days. Commissioner McSwain stated that we do not know if he is interested in the tax credits or not. Mr. Thomas stated that he had visited with Heritage Department and he would probably need assistance with the paperwork. Commissioner McSwain asked after having the house twenty years, if how was now dedicated to fixing the house. Mr. Thomas said yes. Ms. Blick said that she would help but if it is not fixed, it should be sold to another person that would fix it. Chair Holder said that he heard good intentions from Mr. Thomas. He has no idea if $175,000 is enough money. He noted that he knew Paul Dodds had saved houses in that condition but was unsure of what experience that Mr. Thomas had in rehab. Mr. Thomas stated that the labor would be the most expensive item. Commissioner Jones commented that the proposed contract was for $4,000. She said that it was not enough in her experience to start the rehab for the materials to get it in the dry. Mr. Thomas said that he needed it to be in the dry and to pass city inspections. Commissioner Jones asked when the contractor could start. Mr. Purifoy stated that the city was not looking at foreclosure. Andy rehab has to go through Housing and Neighborhood Programs and include a meeting with the director with the owner and the contactor. Proof must be provided that there is ample money to rehab the house and a signed contract to rehab the entirety of the house. A permit will be issued for a ninety day bring to code permit. At the end of ninety days, if sufficient progress has been made, the permit will be extended until the house is brought to code. Ms. Blick asked if the application could be deferred. She understands the conditions made by the Housing department. Commissioner McSwain stated that the HDC is respectful of all parties and demolitions like these put the HDC in a hard spot. Commissioner Frederick stated that an additional deferral will not make any difference. Mr. Dodds spoke again to the commission. He spoke of problems with the ordinance on the issue of unsafe and vacant. A property can be vacant yet still be safe. He thinks it would take $40-50,000 to get it in the dry and in a safe condition, but it would still be uninhabitable. If he reaches that point, there is no longer a hazard to the community. The project scale would be different. Chair Holder expressed concerns of the structural quality of the house even if it is put in the dry. Matt Pekar, a resident of the neighborhood, was concerned about the safety of the area. He said that he exercised common sense and did not go into vacant houses. He spoke of homeless people in the area. He stated it took several years for him to rehab his house on 11th street. Commissioner McSwain asked Mr. Thomas if he has clear title to the house. He said that he did. Vice Chair Russell suggested making a motion to defer thirty days. During that time, they must some to the meeting with Housing and meet the criteria that were stated earlier. If he has met those conditions, then a building permit would be issued. Page 9 of 34 Chair Holder asked if the City had the wherewithal to state if $175,000 was enough to rehab the property. If he is issued a permit, full inspections would have to be made of the work. Mr. Purifoy stated that proof of funds and a signed contract will be required for his director to make a decision to release a building permit on the house. Vice Chair Russell asked if the Commission was willing to defer for thirty days. During those thirty days, he would meet the Housing Departments condition of proof of funds and a signed contract and get a building permit for rehab of the complete house. At that time, he would have an additional sixty day to get it in the dry and another 180 days to be totally done. He asked how does the commission get to this point. Discussion followed. A motion was made by Vice Chair Russell to defer 1419 Commerce to the next public meeting with the owner meeting with the Housing Department and providing proof of funds to rehab the house, a signed contract for rehab, a permit or an application for a permit and a letter from Victor Turner, Director of Housing stating that the owner has met the conditions and that a permit may be issued. Commissioner Hodge seconded. Commissioner Hodge asked if Mr. Thomas understood. Mr. Thomas said he did. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Frederick) and 1 absent (Pekar). Commissioner McSwain stated she voted for the deferral because very clear benchmarks were stated and the owner showed intention to carry it out. Commissioner Frederick voted against because he has had twenty years to do something and why wait another thirty days. Vice Chair Russell supported one last ditch effort to try to save the house. Chair Holder said that he was close to Commissioner Frederick’s viewpoint, but the commission should not tear down houses except in a last resort. He is not sure next time how he will vote. Commissioner Jones would like to see it rehabbed but is wary that the owner may be playing both sides of the fence. Commissioner Hodge stated he was on the fence. He is upset that they are seven months down the road and nothing has been done. He said it would probably come down. He is concerned a homeless person could be lured there and it is a public safety hazard. STAFF UPDATE: Rick Purifoy and Brian Minyard meet with Mr. Thomas on site July 26, 2019 and walked through the house. Mr. Purifoy measured in order to do a report on the anticipated cost of rehabilitation. The discussion centered on rehabbing as a single family house. Mr. Thomas is supposed to meet with the Housing Staff on the 5th or 6th of August to present his contract and financial proof to rehab the house. It is not known at the time of this writing whether an appointment is set up or not. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forthcoming to reflect the outcome of the meeting with the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs. Page 10 of 34 COMMISSION ACTION: August 12, 2019 Mr. Minyard stated that he spoke to Ed Garland and Rick Purifoy today about them attending the meeting. Chair Holder stated that the item cannot be heard since the applicant is not be present. Cleveland Thomas, the owner of 1419 Commerce Street, will meet with Housing and Neighborhood Programs tomorrow at 10:00 to discuss him getting a building permit. Mr. Thomas stated that he could attend a meeting at 2:00 tomorrow. The Historic District Commission adjourned the hearing until August 13, 2019 at 2:00 pursuant to the Bylaws Article IV. C. Adjourned Meetings. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2019 Brian Minyard made a brief presentation including the walk through of the structure. He stated that there was a meeting between the owner and Housing at 10:00 this morning. Mr. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, stated that he met with the owner, Mr. Cleveland Thomas about putting the structure back in the dry with the entire exterior completed within 60 days. He provided access to funds needed. The contractor estimated that it would take $37,000 in labor to put the structure in the dry. That would include roof, walls, new joists and flooring, new foundation, new siding, new windows and doors, and new front porch. He was informed that if there were any historic requirements that he would need to contact staff. There was a discussion on whether this would be a Certificate of Compliance or a Certificate of Appropriateness. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell would prefer a Certificate of Appropriateness. Sherri Latimer, of the City Attorney’s office was okay with the COC; Mr. Minyard suggested passing it to the Commission for their review after the owner submitted all of the materials. Sherri Latimer of the City Attorney’s office agreed that could work. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell would prefer a Certificate of Appropriateness with all drawings and specifications. Mr. Garland stated that it would take $111,000 plus to restore the house. His boss, Victor Turner, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs, has approved a 90-day building permit. Chair Ted Holder asked how a 90-day permit works. Mr. Garland stated that the applicant would need to have inspections and show that a significant amount of work had been done in the 90 days. Mr. Thomas says that it can be in the dry in 60 days. Based on progress made in the 90 days, Housing and Neighborhood Programs may grant an extension. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked Mr. Thomas to clarify that this contract is for labor only. Mr. Thomas said he would be providing materials. Mr. Garland stated that Mr. Thomas had provided a bank statement verification of funds for work. He feels that Mr. Thomas should be allowed to proceed. There was a discussion on what “in the dry” meant. The consensus was that it was to be airtight and all exterior work done including totally enclosed including the front porch. Vice Chair Russell is concerned about the scope of work, for example, the cinder block foundation. He is concerned if the house is going to be jacked up. He continued and spoke of the five points made in the last meeting and stated that the applicant has met the requirements. Those points were that the owner would meet with the Housing Department, provide proof of funds to rehab the house, provide a signed contract for rehab, obtain a permit or an application for a permit and obtain a letter from Victor Turner, Director of Housing stating that the owner has met the conditions and that a permit may be issued. Page 11 of 34 Patricia Blick, Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated that they advocated for the preservation of the structure and would like to see the house restored. Commissioner Hodge asked if the city was withdrawing its application. Mr. Garland stated he was not sure since he was not sure what the recommendation was. He wanted the owner to have the opportunity to allow the owner to rehab the structure but keep the option open for the demolition later. Ms. Latimer stated the she did not believe that the City could do that. If there has not been sufficient work done, the city can reapply when the city feels appropriate. Mr. Hodge spoke that he wanted the option for demolition at a later date and to allow the city to withdraw its application. Cleveland Thomas entered the room at 2:24 pm. Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff recommendation was forthcoming. He stated that the St aff Recommendation was to defer for 60 days to allow progress to be made on the rehab of the house to get it in the dry. If nothing is done to the house in sixty days at the October meeting, you would then vote for or against the demolition. That way the item is still active and the city continues to use the notification list, application, etc. There was a discussion to defer for 90 days versus 60 days. Chair Holder asked if Housing thinks it is feasible to restore the house. Mr. Garland said yes. Commissioner Hodge commented that it must be sealed up and water tight. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application for demolition of 1419 Commerce as submitted. Commissioner Lauren Frederick seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye (Frederick), 4 noes, and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that it was an eyesore and it would get worse. Commissioner Hodge wanted an additional 90 days. Commissioner Frances McSwain saw the property owner working with the city. Vice Chair Russell stated that the property owner has met the conditions of the city. Chair Holder said that he agreed with the others and one of the options was that there was no reasonable alternative. He did not know if this was a reasonable alternative, but it is an alternative. After discussion, Commissioner Hodge made a motion to defer 90 days. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 3 ayes, 2 noes (Frederick and Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Vice Chair Russell stated that he would not vote for a deferral. He wants the homeowner to get started. Chair Holder stated that not deferring will hamstring the City. The 90-day time line is incentive and the deferral leaves options. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to waive the bylaws to allow applicant to withdraw the application. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Mr. Garland stated he wanted to withdraw the application. Page 12 of 34 Commissioner Hodge made a motion to allow the city to withdraw the application. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Jones and Pekar). Commissioner Frederick left the room since she will be recusing from the item at 1414 Park Lane for financial conflict of interest and the Arkansas Arts Center since she is in the area of influence. Page 13 of 34 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. “B” DATE: August 12, 2019 APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Dept. of Housing and Neighborhood Programs ADDRESS: 1414 Park Lane FILE NUMBER: HDC18-031 COA REQUEST: Demolition PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1414 Park Lane. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1907. The 2000 survey form states: “Typical Colonial Revival cottage for the area.” It also states “After her husband’s death, this was the home of Mrs. Regina (John A.) Schmelzer. She and her husband had lived at 1123 Rock S. Rock.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Demolition. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 2, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Pastor C. Harville and Wali Caradine for exterior renovations. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 55 of the guidelines speak of alternatives to demolitions. It states that loss of contributing buildings to the district should not occur. Demolitions of those structures diminish the overall character of the district. Care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition. The architecture of the individual buildings and their context within the district should be reviewed carefully. Location of Project Page 14 of 34 The Guidelines also state five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission. The first is public welfare. This building has been suffering demolition by neglect for the last twenty three years. On August 30, 1995, the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Housing Programs, sent a letter to the then owner, George Pike Jr, stating that an inspection had been made of the house and it was found to be “unsafe, unfit for human inhabitation, offensive to the neighborhood, and it is dangerous to persons in the vicinity or lawfully passing by the structure.” On March 27, 1996, the property changed hands to Lighthouse Inc. and they have owned it ever since. Multiple permits were issued on the structure from 2001 – 2005. From June 2000 – February 2001, permits for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $17,200 to bring the structure to code. Most of these permits expired without completion. In mid-2003, permits were issued for building and electrical work were issued for $20,000 to bring to code and they expired without completing the work. From August 2004 – September 2005, permits for building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing were issued for $24,900 to bring the structure to code. Most of these permits expired without completion. Housing and Neighborhood Programs has had this building on the Unsafe and Vacant list since 2013. The second point is rehabilitation or relocation possibilities. The guidelines state that it can be demolished if it is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of the building. There is no eminent danger upon the building that would necessitate moving the structure to another location. Rehabilitation of the property is an alternative that will be discussed farther along in the report. All properties can be rehabbed if the desire is there. Staff does not have estimates on how much the project would cost if rehab were to be completed. Four rehab permits have been issued within 450 feet of the property. 1410 S Rock Street is currently being rehabbed with a building permit of $90,000. 1402 S Commerce which was partially burned currently was issued 1978 survey photo Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 15 of 34 a rehab permit of $100,000. 515 E 15th and 517 E 15th Street were issued rehab permits issued for $83,500 each. 515 E 15th was sold this year for $195,000. The property at 1414 Park Lane is currently listed as contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. State income tax credits of twenty-five percent of qualified expenses may be available for this structure. Federal income tax credits of twenty percent may be available if the property was income producing. The third point is economic hardship. No hardship argument has been claimed since the City of Little Rock is the applicant. The guidelines state that economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not of the financial status of the property owner. The fourth point is if the building has lost its architectural integrity. The building has not lost its architectural integrity although it is in need of repair. The fifth point states that ‘no reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the home.’ Staff believes that there are alterative to demolition of this structure. They are as listed below. The first would be the sale of the property to another individual. The property was redeemed for back taxes in 1999. This property could be donated to the City’s Landbank Program. The owner can write off the appraised value of the structure off their taxes. That program may remove any existing liens from the property. Being part of the Landbank program does not require the new owner to occupy the structure for their personal use. Activity in the area has shown that in addition to four rehabilitation projects listed above, three new houses have been permitted within the last 2 years within three hundred feet of this property. 401 E Daisy Bates is a new house built in 2017 for $330,000 including land and improvements based on permit data and assessor’s sales data. 407 E Daisy Bates is also a new house currently being built for $379,000 based on same data. 603 E 15th is also a new house currently being built for $805,000 based on same data. If the property is demolished, Housing will place a lien on the property of approximately $6,200 for the demolition fees. Public Works will place another lien of approximately $2,000 for landfill charges. Liens are not necessarily forgiven by the City when the property is sold or developed. Staff believes that this property can be rehabilitated and put back into residential use. Income tax credits could be available on this property based on the work proposed to be done. It can be sold to another individual or donated to the Landbank program. Currently in the immediate area, rehabilitation permits and new single family building permits have been issued that prove that there is a market for housing in this area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation forthcoming. Page 16 of 34 COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the owner was in the audience and that the staff recommendation was to defer for six months in order for the owner to either: 1) list the property for sale, 2) donate it to the Landbank or 3) start the rehabilitation process. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs Code Enforcement Division, spoke for the item. He stated there was $704.32 in outstanding liens on the property now. If the house was sold to a new owner with plans of a complete renovation, they may contact the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs to discuss options on the outstanding liens. Commissioner Frances McSwain said she drove by both of them today and asked how much of it had been destroyed by fire. Mr. Garland said he did not know exactly how much. They had an estimate from 2013 for the renovation expenses and would want to get a contractor opinion on what it would cost for a total rehab on the house. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property goes back to the City, if the liens could be forgiven. Mr. Garland said that each case is different and that liens can be forgiven. Liens are against the property, not the property owner. Charlsetta Harville, the owner of the property, stated that she was the president of the Lighthouse Center CDC. She stated that she has spent more than $70,000 on the rehab of the house to date. She spoke of vandalism and stolen pipes and materials form the house. She is aware of the fire damage. A contractor she had to look at the house recommended that it be torn down. She will go with what the board recommends for her to do. She would consider selling the house or building a new one in its place if the old one was demolished. Chair Ted Holder asked if she had a preference to sell or rehab. Ms. Harville stated that she would rather sell than to rehab. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked her if she was aware of the potential of $10,000 in liens of the city demolished her house. Ms. Harville stated that the Lighthouse Center had donated lots to the Downtown CDC before and the house is more than she can take on. She continued that she thought she could get it demolished for less money than that. Vice Chair Russell said that the application for demolition was the city’s application not hers. If she was to demolish it, she would need to reapply for the demolition herself and go through this process again. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if the property is for sale now. Ms. Harville said it was not but she would be willing to consider selling it. Vice Chair Russell asked her if a six month deferral was approved, would she agree to list the house for sale. She replied yes. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if she had ever listed it for sale before. She said that she had not. She used to keep insurance on it, but does not anymore. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association Director, said that this item was presented at the November 27 Advocacy meeting. They recommended denial of the demolition application. She quoted the guidelines and stated it does not meet the conditions. Other options should be explored before the house is demolished. She said that there were lots of photos of the house before that would aid in the renovation of the Schmelzer House. Page 17 of 34 Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to defer the item for six months with the condition that the property be listed for sale within one month. The motion was seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). STAFF UPDATE: In the almost six months since the last hearing on this item, the property owner has not contacted City Staff to discuss the property. A “For Sale” sign was not on the property at the time of this writing and Staff has not observed on there in the past. A check of the Tax Assessor’s website and the County Treasurer’s office show that the property is still in the ownership of Lighthouse Center, Inc., hence not sold or donated to the Landbank. A building permit has not been sought to repair the property. They has not completed nor initiated any of the three conditions in the approved motion since the last hearing. The property was auctioned by the State Land Commissioner on April 9, 2019 for $704.32 of outstanding liens placed on the property. The property was purchased by a third party for $9,000.00. Ms. Harville redeemed the property (paid the liens off) on April 24, 2019. The property is again owned by Lighthouse, Inc, Staff notified the property owners in the area of influence again with certified return receipt letters on May 29th (shown on page 8 and 9 of this report) along with the “Notice of Public Hearing” Form. The letter shown on page 10 was sent both certified return receipt and plain envelope US mail. Each of the letters was mailed to the two known addresses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2019 The applicant, Ed Garland, of Housing and neighborhood Programs was not present. According to the Bylaws, Article V E 9., “The applicant of each item docketed shall be present or represented at the meeting and prepared to discuss the request.” Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked Sherri Latimer if she interpreted that to mean the applicant must be present. She responded yes. A motion was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell to defer the item until the July 8, 2019 hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2019 Commissioner Lauren Frederick recused from this item. Brian Minyard made a brief presentation to the commission. Rick Purifoy spoke on this item on behalf of the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department. He believes that is it below 50 percent of original material left. The owner does not respond to his calls and the letters come back unclaimed. Page 18 of 34 Chair Ted Holder wanted clarification that the wall was gone from the house. Mr. Purifoy said that it was unsafe and has not been inside it since the fire. Mrs. Charlsetta Harville, the owner of the property, stated she was the President of the Lighthouse. IN December she was presented options to sell or rehab the property. She had contacted a realtor but the realtor had left town. She is currently trying to list the property with Coldwell Banker. Commissioner Frances McSwain asked if she had a contract with Coldwell Banker. She said she did not. She plans to sign tomorrow. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked how much she was listing it for. She stated she would list for what it appraised for. Vice Chair Russell stated that he had been contacted by a developer and they had made an offer to her. Ms. Harville said she did talk to them but it did not go any further. Vice Chair Russell stated that there was an offer of $15,000 in cash for the property. Commissioner Frances McSwain asked if she had clear title to the property. She said yes. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if they had a deed. She replied that she had a deed from the Land Commissioner. Ms. Harville spoke of prior building permits on the house and that her husband died in 2011. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association director, state that their position was the same as before. She recommends deferral and wanted to see the report as stated in the guidelines. The guidelines set a high standard and there has been interest from the public in rehabbing the property. Chair Ted Holder stated that the Commission did not have to have a concurring report. Matthew Pekar asked if he could get the contact information for Ms. Harville. She stated she wrote it on the sign in sheet. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer 1414 Park Lane to the August 2019 meeting so that the owner can be under contract to sell the property or give it to the Landbank. Commissioner Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 1 absent (Pekar) and 1 recusal (Frederick) Commissioner McSwain stated that it brings pressure to do something on the property. Vice Chair Russell wanted to give one last try to save the property. Chair Holder stated that the Commission should be in the business of preservation. Commissioner Jones stated the location of the house may indicate that it was one of the Kleinschmidt houses and reiterated that they should be in the preservation business. Commissioner Hodge echoed the comments of others and would rather see it saved. He believes it has a chance of being rehabbed if it was sold. STAFF UPDATE: Staff visited the property on August 5, 2019 and there was not a for sale sign on the property. Staff has not been notified that the property was up for sale or that it had been sold. Page 19 of 34 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item will be forwarded to the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department to review for possible condemnation and demolition. COMMISSION ACTION: August 12, 2019 Mr. Minyard stated that he spoke to Ed Garland and Rick Purifoy, Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs, today about them attending the meeting. Chair Holder stated that the item cannot be heard since the applicant is not be present. The Historic District Commission adjourned the hearing until August 13, 2019 at 2:00 pursuant to the Bylaws Article IV. C. Adjourned Meetings. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2019 Commissioner Frederick left the room at this time since she will be recusing from the item at 1414 Park Lane for financial conflict of interest and the Arkansas Arts Center since she is in the area of influence. Brian Minyard made a brief presentation with an update of a new owner, Greg Smith. Mr. Smith did send an email to staff and it stated that he is interested in demolishing the structure and to rebuild on the site in the near future. Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, stated that Greg Smith had purchased the property since the July meeting and that they were working on getting hum copies of everything concerning the property within 24 hours as is customary with a change of ownership. The discussion arose on whether the commission should allow withdrawal of the item. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if the new owner would need to file a new application. Chair Ted Holder stated that previous owners have worked with the city to demolish when the city was the applicant. Mr. Garland said that citizens are permitted to do their own demolition. They must have a qualified contractor to demolish the structure with permits. Chair Ted Holder asked about the city’s position. Mr. Garland stated that based on its condition and the health and safety of the neighborhood, the last thing they want to do is make a vacant lot. But the City finds that it needs to be demolished based on its continued deterioration. Chair Holder referred to the five reasons in the Guidelines to hang your hat on when demolishing, and the most relevant is the impossibility to restore. He asked if it was impossible to restore. Mr. Garland responded that with enough money, anything is possible. Chair Holder stated that an entire wall is missing and he did not want to get close to it. Mr. Garland spoke of the economic return on investment. He thinks that a new structure could cost less in his personal opinion. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association, stated that their recommendation has not been changed. Condition #1 of the Guidelines section on demolition requires a report (by a structural engineer, architect, or other who’s an expert in historic preservation) and if you are going to deviate, you need to state why. Three people are interested in rehabbing the building but their offers have not been accepted. The onus needs to be put on the new owner to prove that it is unrepairable. Page 20 of 34 Commissioner Hodge asked Chair Holder if the list of the conditions for demolition stated in the guidelines were disjunctive. Chair Holder stated they were and only one of the conditions had to be met or any combination of them. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell referred to the requirements of the last motion in the last meeting of the previous owner’s rehabbing, finding a buyer to rehab, or giving the property to the Landbank. Tearing it down is against what the HDC is supposed to do. He agrees with Ms. Blick to put the onus of the new owner to rehab or sell. He thinks the commission should allow the application to be withdrawn. Commissioner Frances McSwain asked if Ms. Blick has had contact with the new owner and wondered what his thoughts were. Ms. Blick stated that she had introduced herself to him last night but did not have an in-depth conversation. Commissioner Hodge asked Mr. Garland if the commission voted to waive the bylaws, if he would want to withdraw the item. Mr. Garland said that the application was to demolish the structure. And now the new owner wants to demolish and build new. The new owner would need to the mailings, etc. for any new application. He asked if the goal was to rehab the structure in relation to this application and to any future applications. It was decided that if the city withdraws and nothing happens, the city can reapply. The owner has the option to file a later application. Mr. Garland stated that the Commission wants the structure saved, but Housing’s opinion is that the structure is unsafe. Vice Chair Russell asked Mr. Garland if he wanted to withdraw his application. Based on all of the factors, he responded yes. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to waive the bylaws to allow a withdrawal of the item. Commissioner McSwain seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 3 absent (Jones, Pekar, and Frederick). Mr. Garland asked to withdraw the item. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to withdraw of the item. Commissioner McSwain seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 3 absent (Jones, Pekar, and Frederick). There was a five minute break. Page 21 of 34 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: August 12, 2019 APPLICANT: Laine Harber, Arkansas Arts Center ADDRESS: 501 E 9th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2019-011 COA REQUEST: Renovation with expansions and removals to existing footprint PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lots A Through F, E.O. Bagley's Subdivision of Lots Subdivision, Little Rock and Lot 5 , Block 154, Original City of Little Rock, and Lot 6, and a 60' Street South of and adjacent to Block 154, Original City of Little Rock and Lots 1 Through 3, Block 155, Original City of Little Rock, and Lots 1 Through 6, Block 153, Original City of Little Rock and that part of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 1 North, Range 11 West, lying East of the Quapaw Line, West of McAlmont Street, and North of East 13th Street, in The City of Little Rock and that Part of The SW 1/2 of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, Lying South of East 9th Street, West of McAlmont Street, and East of the Quapaw Line, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas” The original building of the Arkansas Arts Center was built in 1937. The 2006 survey form states: “Original building was constructed as an Art Center. Over the years, modifications and additions have been made with a major modification completed in 2004.” There have been seven additions to the original building. See graphic on page 11 of this report. It is considered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This COA will review a renovation with additions and subtractions to existing footprint. The application form states: “The proposed Project is a renovation and 28,000 SF addition to the existing Arkansas Arts Center located within MacArthur Park. The Project includes significant Location of Project Page 22 of 34 re-work of the primary public entries and re-organization of existing program components. The 28,000 SF of growth is accommodated mostly through the expansion of the second floor at the northwest corner of the site into existing space that is currently double height gallery and lobby. The proposed site modifications lessen the hardscape impact to the park by reducing overall paving surface, incorporating eco-friendly storm management strategies, adding over 250 new trees to the park through an extensive Parking Forest, and creating new civic landscape environments that connect the Arts Center to the surrounding Park and Community. At the new City Entry plaza, the original 1937 Historical Facade will be uncovered and restored as the primary public entry to the Center.” This application does not include any signage. It will be reviewed in a future COA. This application has also been reviewed by the Parks Commission in their July 10, 2019 meeting. Parks Commission is there to advise, not direct. There were some comments along the lines of how the Arts Center improvements will be a sharp contrast to the rest of the park. Aside from those, all appreciated the proposed plans. To the right is an early graphic to describe the building that will be referenced in the following report. North is to the upper right of the sketch. The north entry is called the “City Entry” while the south entry is called the “Park Entry”. The existing west entry with the large fountain will become the loading dock. The organic sculptural roof that connects the City and Park Entries is referred to as the Blossom. It divides and organizes the building on a north south axis. The “Cultural Living Room” is located over the City Entry. The Henry Moore Standing Knife Edge sculpture will be located between the Cultural Living Room and the 1937 Building. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 14, 2014, a COA was approved for a banner on the northwest portion of the building facing Ninth Street. On July 14, 2008, a COA was approved for a sign at 9th and Commerce and a screen wall around new air conditioning units visible from Commerce Street. On May 7, 1998, a COA was approved with conditions for a 31,500 sf addition to the building complex. On March 17, 1989, a COA was approved additions and modifications to the building. Schematic of building Page 23 of 34 Partial existing north elevation Partial existing west elevation Partial existing south elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map. Blue are contributing, red are non-contributing and green are national Historic Landmarks. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the May 24, 2019 pre application hearing with the Design Review Committee. The comments from the commissioners are summarized as follows: Siting – Buildings are existing and new additions conform to guidelines with changes primarily to the south. Height – New additions do not extend above existing 2000 addition height. Proportion – General improvements are more cohesive are generally incompliance with guidelines. Rhythm - General improvements are generally incompliance with guidelines with new design that is less chaotic and an improvement. Scale – Relatively little change from before. Massing – There is a net gain of mass, but should not be detrimental or obstructive. Parking grove on west should minimize bulk. Entrance Areas – Exposing original entry is a plus, both entries matching unifies building more. Page 24 of 34 Wall areas – Wall areas are increased but unification of material, solid and void is much improved. Roof areas – no comments. Façade – no comments. Detailing – no comments. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Below is a summary of the application based on the eleven design factors as stated in Sec 23- 120 (d). SITING The building is the largest of three buildings located in the approximately forty-acre MacArthur Park. It sits in the northwest corner of the park near the intersection of Ninth and Commerce Streets. The land is zoned Park and Recreation (PR) which does not list required setbacks within the zoning category. The closest building is the Arsenal building which is located to the east. The siting of the building with the proposed additions and removals is similar to the existing. The setbacks from Commerce Street on the west side of the building has increased (a portion of the northwest corner of the building will be removed). It currently has approximately a 40’ setback and with the removals and additions, it will have a 75’ setback, an increase of 35’. The parking area that will be placed between the building and Ninth Street will feature extensive tree planting (one tree for every two spaces) that will assist in screening the building and make the setback appear larger. The setback from Ninth Street will also increase approximately 8’ with the removal of the northwest corner of the building. The setback is in the range of 200 feet at that point, so the increase may not be perceived. The setback for the eastern façade of the building does not change. The southern façade does have an addition that will serve as one of the main entrances to the building. That addition will add an additional 104 feet to the building but will not be perceived from Pulaski County Way. HEIGHT The height of the building changes but does not exceed what is already there. Some of the spaces that were a tall single story will become two stories. On the north façade, the height of the galley space that is currently in the northwest corner of the building is approximately 45’ tall at its highest. Currently, there are three levels at 18’, 29’ and 45’. Portions of that mass that are shorter will be raised to 45’ high. With the additional height, that area will become two floors instead of being a tall single height floor as it is now. The Cultural Living Room at the north entrance will be slightly taller than the 45 feet described above. As a note, the original 1937 building was 37 feet tall. The southern façade will still be dominated by the Children’s Theater flyway mass at 53 feet tall. The new entrance to the building will be in the range of 24-26 feet tall and be broken into multiple petals of the Blossom. The museum school area that is in the southwest corner of the building will remain at the same height at about 12’. On the west side, a one-story mass and a screened mechanical area will be removed on the extreme northwest corner. Two additions that are one-story will be added on the west façade, Page 25 of 34 one for a mechanical area and another for the ceramics kiln. These additions will be about 12’ tall. Portions of the northwest corner will be raised to the 45’ height as explained earlier. The existing east façade does not change and remains about 20’ tall. PROPORTION The existing proportion of the building is mostly horizontal with taller elements, namely the children’s theater flyway and the northwest gallery. The proposed proportion will still be horizontal but with the additional mass at the City and Park Entries, it may appear to be more uniform in height than before. This building, when compared to others in the area of influence, is far wider than any others. It is shorter than four structures: Quapaw, Parkview and Cumberland Towers, and the Bowen Law School at thirteen, nine, eleven, and five floors respectively. RHYTHM On Rhythm, rectangular windows are vertical in nature and the ganged windows and doors also read as ganged individual vertical units. The City and Park Entries along with the clearstory windows in the Blossom roof create a rhythm of glazed openings. SCALE With the proposed plan, the overall scale will change slightly The building has dwarfed the neighboring single family and apartments in the area of influence and the neighborhood in terms of footprint in the past and will continue to do so. The height is shorter than a few structures but taller than most in the district. Three of the four that are taller are within the area of influence. MASSING A breakdown supplied by the architects describes the changes to each floor in terms of square footage. Basement pit below stage – existing 1,600 sf, proposed 1,600 sf. No change. Lower Level 1 South – existing 37,600 sf, proposed 54,800 sf. This includes the addition of the Park Restaurant, the Park Entry areas, and the ceramics kiln area. Upper Level 1 North – 49,000 sf, proposed 41,600 sf. This includes the removal of portions of the north façade. Level 2 – existing 7,500 sf, proposed 35,000 sf. This includes the taking of two story height gallery spaces and making them into two floors, the raising of the roof on some portions, and adding the Cultural living Room at the City Entry. Starting at the northeast corner of the building and describing the additions and removals, they are as follows: On the north façade where the original 1937 entry will be exposed, 7650 sf will be removed on the first floor and 2,800 on the second floor (double height space). On the north façade, 2000 sf will be added with the Cultural Living Room and service areas. On the west façade, 2080 sf will be removed from the extreme northwest corner and 1125 will be removed from the southern portion of the museum school on the first floor and 1800 sf of double height space will be removed on the northwest corner. Two one story additions of 2100 sf for a mechanical yard and 2800 sf for the ceramics kiln will be added. Page 26 of 34 On the south façade, 8,500 sf will be added in the new entry area and restaurant along almost the entirety of the façade with the bulk in the center for the entry and restaurant. On the east façade, a detached storage building of approximately 1,000 sf will be demolished and a dumpster enclosure of 286 sf will be built. The enclosure will be 8 feet tall. ENTRANCE AREA There are multiple entrances to the building. The two public entrances will be located at the north and south that are called the City Entry and the Park Entry, respectively. The City Entry will utilize the original 1937 building’s entrance that will be exposed for the first time since 1981 and will again face Ninth Street with a surrounding courtyard plaza area. At the City Entry, the three original 1937 doors will be operational. One additional set of public entry doors will be located directly to the west under the canopy of the Blossom. Building columns will punctuate the plaza space to support the Cultural Living Room and the Blossom. The plaza will feature the new home of the Henry Moore Standing Knife Edge sculpture. The Cultural Living room, located on the second floor, will form the fourth wall of the courtyard while providing a covered area between the car drop off and the entry doors. The plaza will be open air. The southern Park Entry will also feature the Blossom architectural motif and the entry doors will face southwest to the parking area and southeast to the park. This entry area will be double height space. The area around the southern entry is labeled South Plaza on the plans. Both the north and south plazas feature precast concrete seatwalls on each side of the entry. The City Entry will feature one floating in the plaza area. See the graphic on the previous page. The pavers in the north plaza area will be limestone (12” x 24” Limestone unit pavers in a Caramel Crème Limestone color). Around the base of the Standing Knife Edge, the limestone pavers will be cut into 4x4” pavers and woven into the pattern of the larger pavers. Exposed aggregate sidewalks First floor additions and subtractions. Subtractions in orange and additions in blue. Additions of service areas in red. Second floor additions and subtractions. Subtractions in orange and additions in blue. Freestanding seatwall details at City Entry Page 27 of 34 will border the crescent drive on the south side. At the Park Entry to the south, the paving will be concrete for sidewalks and entry areas. Brick will be used to tie into existing brick walks. Seatwalls will define the sidewalks leading away from the entry. A ha-ha wall will transition from the entry to the park area to the southeast. According to Wikipedia, a ha-ha wall is defined as: A ha-ha (French: hâ-hâ or saut de loup) is a recessed landscape design element that creates a vertical barrier while preserving an uninterrupted view of the landscape beyond. The design includes a turfed incline which slopes downward to a sharply vertical face (typically a masonry retaining wall). Ha-has are used in landscape design to prevent access to a garden, for example by grazing livestock, without obstructing views. In security design, the element is used to deter vehicular access to a site while minimizing visual obstruction. The name "ha-ha" is thought to have stemmed from the exclamations of surprise by those coming across them, as the walls were intentionally designed to be invisible. The crescent drive will revert to east bound traffic and there will be an increase of the width of the drive to allow for a passenger drop off space under the canopy of the Blossom. The drive will be asphalt to match the existing drive. One of the staff entry areas will be on the west façade at the loading dock area. The other entry will be on the east side by the dumpster area. Staff entry areas are intentionally underplayed. There will be exterior steps at the western loading dock and the east loading dock. in both those locations the steps are cast in place concrete and the railings are painted steel. WALL AREAS The primary surface of the wall areas is brick. The majority of the brick that is present will be retained. There will be additional brick added to raise the height of the walls in some locations, primarily on the northwest corner of the building. New brick will match in texture and color as much as possible. All brick will be stained with a penetrating to be a consistent gray color throughout after staining. This stain will homogenize the variety of existing colors within the current façade. Areas over the windows and openings on the west façade at the art school will receive a different tone for those panels but all colors will be in a consistent tonal family. This can be seen on the west façade as shown on page 16 of this report. Seatwall detail at building Seatwall details at both entries Page 28 of 34 The City and Park Entries feature walls of glass and public doors will be full glass. Some wall surfaces that are above roofs are labeled as INSUL 7 which will be stucco or stucco substitute. On the west façade, there will be horizontal flat ribbed metal panels to vent the mechanical room. On the west side, they are approximately 9’ tall by 3’ wide. There is a small outbuilding located between the Arts Center and the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. It was being used for the Military museum storage but owned by the Art Center. It is being demolished and a dumpster is being built in that location. On the new additions, the finish brick goes to the ground. No foundation is showing. Being a museum, windows are less in number than for other uses such as residential and commercial uses. Starting at the City Entry at the original 1937 entrance, the windows and doors are described as follows: in the City Entry courtyard, there are the three sets of original 1937 entry glass doors with transoms above. There is one vertical window on each side for the doors. To the right and left of the original façade, there are entry doors and full height windows and transoms. The entirety of the Cultural Living Room is glazing with continuous windows reaching roughly 25’ in height from the second floor level. On the North elevation, there is a bank of six windows on the northwest corner of the building measuring in total about 13’ high x 34’ wide. On the west façade, windows are two sizes - 6’ high x 3’ wide and 6’ high x 4’ wide. Also on the west elevation, entering into the Art yard, there are three sets of one door and two windows ganged together that measure a total of 9’ high and approximately 9’ wide. On the south elevation, at the Park Entry, the restaurant space and entry spaces have continuous glazing from the ground to about 25’ in height. East of the restaurant/ Park entry, there is a service door with transom and side light measuring about 10’ high x 6’ wide. On the east elevation, there are three 6’x4’ windows. in the administration area in the northeast corner of the building, there are eight 6’x4’ vertical windows. There are multiple clearstory windows in the Blossom roof system of varying sizes and shapes on the south façade and in the center of the building. Doors at public entries will be all glass pivot doors or custom steel framed glass doors. Secondary entrances will be pre-finished aluminum storefront or aluminum curtain wall. Services doors will be flush hollow metal with hollow metal frames. Storage building in the center of the photograph to be demolished and replaced with dumpster enclosure. Page 29 of 34 Wall mounted sconces will be installed on the building above doors and on wall surfaces. These are LED in two sizes, 8 1/2’x17” and 5”x5”. Both are in textured dark bronze color. Parking lot and pathway lighting will be on poles with varying number of fixtures per pole from one to six. The pole heights vary from 12-22’ tall. See graphic on pages 19 and 20 of this report. No additional gutters are being installed on the building. On the existing north and east walls there are existing thru-wall scuppers and downspouts which will remain. These are square painted aluminum, bronze color. There will be two new thru wall scuppers and downspouts added at the south service kitchen addition. These will match the existing in design and color. ROOF AREA The Mansard roof on the south side will be partially removed to allow for new construction. One section of mansard roof on the south side of the theater will partially remain but will not be visible once new construction is in place. The folded plate Blossom roof will be a PVC Membrane roofing system w/ applied battens. Color will be white. The typical new roofing at all other flat roofs with parapets will be a thermoplastic olefin (TPO) membrane roof. Color will be white. New silicone roof coating system to be applied to existing membrane roof systems to remain. Color will be white. There will be various exhaust vents on the roof but none are anticipated to be of significant size or highly visible. FAÇADE The facades of the building will be primarily brick with large expanses of windows at the City and Park Entries. Being a museum, windows are less in number than for other uses such as residential and commercial uses. The texture of brick will blend with other brick structures in the area of influence and the neighborhood. Precast concrete coping will be used on the facades which are similar to other precast used in the neighborhood. Precast concrete has replaced the historical stone lintels and coping. DETAILING All exterior ground level mechanical and electrical equipment will be located within the mechanical enclosure on the northwest side of the site. Two other mechanical units will be roof mounted on the east side of the building. Wall mounted sconces (LIL LED) Wall mounted sconces (LIL LED) Page 30 of 34 SITE DESIGN: LANDSCAPE FEATURES The entry areas to the building will feature seatwalls that act as retaining walls for the elevated planting beds. The area to the southeast of the restaurant will have an 18- 20” tall ha-ha wall. This ha-ha wall will act as a retaining wall to bring the grade of the sod up to the Park Entry plaza area. The West Art Yard will be enclosed with a six foot chain link fence and screened by an evergreen hedge. The Standing Red sculpture is proposed to be moved to the southeast in the lawn area north of the new sculpture “Blooming” donated by the South Korean government. LIGHTING A combination of pole lights, up lights and path lights will be used in lighting the area. see graphics starting on pages 19 and 20 of this report. PARKING AREAS DRIVEWAYS CURB CUTS AND PAVING The parking lot will feature a combination of chipseal asphalt and exposed aggregate. Bands of exposed aggregate concrete will run perpendicular to the aisles in the parking lot between the tree wells. The existing driveways along Commerce Street will remain in the same locations and widths. The existing dock on the east side of the building will remain and its driveway will not be changed. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS All exterior ground level mechanical and electrical equipment will be located within the Mechanical enclosure on the North West side of the site. There is a small outbuilding located between the Arts Center and the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. It is being demolished and a dumpster is being built in that location. The height of the enclosure is 8’ tall and constructed out of stained brick veneer (which will match the building) over concrete block backup material. Entry gates are metal vertical pickets w/ solid metal sheet panel. This will serve the current dumpsters for both the military museum and the Arkansas Arts Center. SIGNS No building signage or site signage is being submitted for review at this time. Once AAC has concluded their signage and branding studies a full signage package will be submitted to Historic District Commission for full approval under a separate application. Art yard gate Page 31 of 34 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS The Guidelines on page 27-29 speak to additions to historic structures. The Arkansas Arts Center does have a historic core, but that 1937 building has been added onto seven different times in its history (1963, 1971, 1981, 1982, 1989, 2000, and 2001) and this application proposes yet another addition and removal of space. The building is listed as a Non-Contributing resource to the district because of the numerous additions to the building and the fact that the additions have dwarfed and hidden the original structure. See the graphic above. The texts in the guidelines pertain to this application in varying degrees. On page 27, the Guidelines state that some alterations may have achieved historic status because of their age and those should be recognized and respected. More recent additions, which are not historic, may be removed or altered within the COA process. The question for the Commission is if the 1963 southern addition and entrance which has barely passed the fifty-year typical age for inclusion, is an exemplary example of that period of architecture and should be preserved. Also starting on page 27, it states that new alterations should respect the original design character of the building. On page 28, it states that the additions should be of a compatible design, should not remove extensive amounts of historic materials and should not hinder the ability to interpret the design character of the structure’s historic period. This exi sting design character is a jumble of styles and the original structure is encased in the additions. The proposal removes additions to the north side of the building which will expose the 1937 original entrance and once again utilize it as the City Entry to the building. The 1937 façade will be within a courtyard area and will somewhat be covered with the support columns and the “Cultural Living Room’ on the second floor located to the north. While this entry is exposed again, the bulk of the 1937 building is still embedded in the superstructure of the building. The Secretary of the interior Standards for Rehabilitation state: 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Additions to the building Page 32 of 34 Concerning standard number 9, the proposed plan actually removes non-historic materials and exposes the historic entry into the building. All of the additions from 1963 through the proposed addition are differentiated from the original 1937 building. Concerning standard number 10, this standard is a moot point with the seven, soon to be eight, auditions to the building. The eleven design factors are listed in Sec 23-120 (d). The Commission reviews applications based on these factors. On factor number one, Siting, the building has been modified to sit farther away from Commerce Street and the residential uses on that side. On height, the building is not getting appreciably taller than it is now. Three other buildings in the area of influence are taller than it. On Proportion, the buildings height to width ratio is changing with the height increase on the southern portion of the building. On Rhythm, rectangular windows are vertical in nature and the ganged windows and doors also read as ganged individual vertical units. The City and Park Entries along with the clearstory windows in the Blossom roof create a rhythm of glazed openings. On Scale and Massing, see paragraph below. On Entrance areas, they are pronounced and defined. For Wall Areas, there are windows, doors, and louvers on each façade. There are fewer windows than other structures in the district because of the nature of protecting the artwork and the location of service areas in the design. The Roof Area is primarily flat with the Blossom roof that has similarities with the folded roof on the parking structure at Parkview Towers. Concerning Facades, the design has attempted to unify the entirety of the building thorough color and utilizing materials that are already on the site. Detailing will be through the use of cast concrete coping and posts. This Arkansas Arts Center building is the largest building in the district in footprint and total square footage. Runners up are the Bowen School of Law at approximately 175,000 sf, Quapaw Towers at approximately 167,000 sf., Cumberland Towers, and Parkview Tower (Teachers Retirement) both at 100,000 sf. For contrast, the Arsenal building, located directly to the east, has a footprint of 5100 sf and a total square footage of 15,000. in terms of footprint, the proposed Art Center has a footprint of 81,000 sf, the Bowen School of Law with 72,000 and Parkview Towers at 24,000 with a large area being the carport parking structure. Quapaw Tower and Cumberland Tower are 15,000 and 9,600 respectively. All numbers are rounded and were generated from the Tax Assessors site, PaGIS, the application, or correspondence with the applicant. City code. Sec 23-120 (f), states; “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d).” Of the eleven design factors that the Commission is required to review applications against, the building will never “blend” with the existing neighborhood and the area of influence as required in Sec 23-120 (f) for the factors of massing, scale, and wall areas. This is because of the overall size of the building and the lack of windows in large expanses of the wall areas where galleries, storage, and service areas are located. in the state statute 14-172-209 (b)(3), it states: “The commission shall determine whether the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant fixtures involved will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic district for the purposes of this subchapter, or whether, notwithstanding that it may be inappropriate, owing to conditions especially affecting the structure involved, but not affecting the Page 33 of 34 historic district generally, failure to issue a certificate of appropriateness will involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant, and whether the certificate may be issued without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this subchapter.” It is Staff’s opinion that it would be inconceivable for the application to meet the standards for the three factors listed above to blend into the existing neighborhood and the area of influence considering the surrounding buildings in the district. Staff also recognizes that a vibrant Arkansas Arts Center is positive to the public welfare of the historic district and the city. The renovations, additions and removals to the building should not affect the historic district generally as reviewed earlier in this report. The applicant has exhibited every effort to address the other eight design factors as reviewed earlier in this document. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: August 12, 2019 With 2 members recusing (Jones and Frederick) and 2 absent (McSwain and Pekar) there was not a quorum to hear the item. The Historic District Commission adjourned the hearing until August 13, 2019 at 2:00 pursuant to the Bylaws Article IV. C. Adjourned Meetings. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2019 After a brief recess, Brian Minyard made a brief presentation to the Commission based on the staff report and the eleven design factors. He noted emails from Carolyn Newbern and Robin Loucks. Laine Harber, Interim Executive Director of the Arkansas Arts Center, spoke that this is a monumental public/private project for the city. It is exciting and the new design makes the building become a part of the park. Juliana Wolf, Partner at Studio Gang, joined the meeting digitally through the website Go To Meeting. She presented the PowerPoint slide show presentation. Chair Ted Holder stated that he was overwhelmed with the presentation. He stated that it was the biggest building in the district and will not and cannot look like the old houses in the district. He continued that Ms. Wolf did a great job in presenting what was there and what would change. The new plan unifies the building and it was good that they were keeping the older trees but he may not agree about the deciduous trees. Commissioner Frances McSwain is happy to see the 1937 entrance being reused and she remembers playing on the steps as a child. She noted it was keeping the best of the 1960s plan. She continued it was good to see how much time they spent on landscaping. She asked if the budget were cut, will the landscaping be cut if the money does not come in. Mr. Harber said that the fundraising has gone well and they are on track to make their goal. They are looking to build the endowment. He said they anticipate full completion. Patricia Blick, Quapaw Quarter Association, said that the Quapaw Quarter Association was following the progress of the project and that reopening the 1937 entrance was wonderful. She noted Carolyn Newbern's email about the interface with the Arsenal building and anticipates a positive influence on the museum next door. Chair Holder commented on the email from Ms. Newbern about the surface of the walkways and mobility for some citizens. He also mentioned the modern style lights with LED fixtures. Cindy Pruitt, Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects, stated the exposed aggregate concrete will be a small aggregate and will be ADA compliant. It should not be a trip hazard. On the lights, they are dark sky compliant. The building is looking towards LEED Silver status and the fixtures have clean lines and try not to draw attention to themselves. They will not be a historic fixture and they are not trying to emulate one. Ms. Wolfe stated they are trying to be as dark as possible with the exterior lighting, to be safe but not have too much light. Mr. Page Wilson asked what color the light was. Ms. Pruitt stated it was not blue but could not specify what temperature the light was. Mr. Wilson continued on a comment on a LID (Low impact development) strategy in the park and the presence of bats in the area. He stated that there had been mistakes made in other lighting in the city. He asked if the concrete was pervious. Ms. Pruitt stated that is was not. The City's Parks and Recreation Department specifically required that enough surface water be directed to the pond to keep the pond full. She did state that the water would be filtered before it went into the pond. Commissioner Mcswain asked for clarification about the paths around the parade grounds. Ms. Pruitt stated that they would not be changed. Commissioner Mcswain stated that she did not believe any archeological studies had been completed on the site and encouraged them to notify the state if they found anything. Stephan McAteer (MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History) stated that the parade grounds and the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History had an exterior conservation easement on them. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the item as presented. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Pekar) and 2 recusals (Frederick and Jones). Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 3:44 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date Page 34 of 34