HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC19-001 Staff Report 1019 rock Street demo 2
DATE: February 11, 2019
APPLICANT: Ed Garland, Housing and Neighborhood Programs
ADDRESS: 1019 Rock Street
FILE NUMBER: HDC19-001
COA REQUEST: Demolition of house
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1019 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 5 and 6, Block 58,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built in 1930. The 2006
survey form states: “This one story Colonial Revival
house is asymmetrical with front facing gable and 3/4
porch between the front and side wings. A set of
Palladian windows and classical columns reflect the style
of the house.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On July 11, 2018, a COA was approved and issued to
Housing and Neighborhood Programs to demolish the
assessory building along the alley.
On December 4, 1986, a COA was approved and issued
to Felton Lamb for a six unit apartment complex and
garage that encompassed 1015, 1019 and 1023 Rock
Street.
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.
Location of Project
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES: Felton Lamb Jr has owned the property since 1994 according to the Tax
Assessors office website. The ownership includes Lots 5 and 6 of Block 58, Original City. The
house sits on lot 5. Lot 6, on the corner, is vacant.
Mr. Lamb died on August 8, 2018. As of this writing,
no one has stepped forward to discuss the future of
the house.
The Department of Planning and Development has
mailed notices to all property owners within 150 feet
and those within the block that are outside of the 150
foot radius to inform them of the public hearing. In
addition, Planning mailed notices to previous known
addresses of Felton Lamb and five suspected or
known relatives of the deceased. The Department of
Housing and Neighborhood Programs has mailed
notification to all lienholders of the property. Two
legal ads have been run for the hearing. The first is
the standard notice for the hearing that ran once and
the second was a general notice that ran for two
consecutive weeks.
The house is a contributing structure in the district. The fire consumed the middle of the
building and most of the roof has collapsed. The west and south gables are intact but leaning
towards the center of the house with the south gable in a position to become disengaged and
fall onto the ground below.
The affidavit from the Assistant Fire Marshal states that the building has been extensively
damaged by fire, constitutes an immediate fire hazard to the community, and is otherwise
dangerous to human life. They recommend that the building be removed or demolished as
soon as possible. The affidavit is attached to the end of the report.
Charles Givens, Building Codes Manager, Planning and Development, inspected the building on
January 28, 2019. His email states “In view of my findings during my inspection it is my
professional opinion that this structure should be razed and removed as soon as possible. It
presents a danger to the general public and the adjoining property owners if it remains in its
current condition.”
Paraphrasing a former commissioner, when a building has suffered sudden traumatic damage
(fire, tornado, etc.) it is easier to repair because more of the structure is in good repair. When a
building has suffered from long term deterioration, the repair is much more intense because you
cannot assume that any of the building material is in good condition because of the effects of
demolition by neglect. All of the materials in the house must be inspected for rot, water
damage, termites, etc. which changes the dynamics of the project immensely.
The low retaining wall on Rock Street and the steps are historic site features. Although the wall
is not in good repair, it can be restored at a later date. Any demolition of the house should not
remove any of the rock wall or the original steps. See photo later in this report.
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Front of house from 2007 Survey Rear of house from 2007 Survey
Front of house on May 10, 2018 Rear of house on May 10, 2018
Front of house on February 1, 2019 Rear of house on February 1, 2019
The Guidelines set forth five criteria listed on page 55 of the current guidelines. They are listed
on page 10 and 11 of this Staff Report. This property conforms to the three of the criteria: #1 -
public safety and welfare, #2 – when rehabilitation and relocation is unfeasible, and #5 - no
other reasonable alternative is feasible.
Items 3 and 4 are extreme hardship has been demonstrated and if the building has lost its
architectural integrity. Extreme hardship has not been demonstrated. As of this writing, Staff
has not been contacted by the owner or the owner’s estate’s representative for them to
demonstrate hardship. The building still retains its
architectural integrity as much as it can with the
fire damage.
Demolitions should be a rare event in a local
ordinance district. With much forethought, Staff is
recommending demolition of this structure. The
fire has taken out the center of the building, as
opposed to other fires in the recent past in the
district that have affected two rooms or only the
attic. The fire marshal has signed an affidavit
stating that this property is a hazard to the
community. This house has suffered the short
term traumatic damage of the fire in addition to the
long term deterioration of neglect for the last 20 years which puts all of the structure in play for
rehab. Any building can be restored if enough desire and money is applied to the project but
whether that will happen or not is the question. While some of the exterior and interior walls do
not appear to have fire damage, it is unknown how much long term deterioration has occurred.
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 demolition permit.
2. Do not remove the low retaining wall material or the front steps along Rock Street.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2019
Commissioner Dale Pekar noted for the record that he was going to recuse on this item since he
owned property in the area of influence. Commissioner Frances McSwain also noted that she
would recuse for the same reason.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item.
Ed Garland, of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Program’s, made a presentation.
He stated that the Housing Department felt that the house poses an imminent danger to the
public. He noted the house has been neglected for so long. In response to a question, he
stated he would not allow his employees go into the house, and he does not know the condition
of the interior walls or floors. Housing and Neighborhood Programs have boarded a portion of
the house that was open.
Media Wilkins, an attorney, stated she was a family friend and does not have a formal
agreement at this time to represent the family. She wanted to help Irma Walker, Felton Lamb’s
aunt.
Arkie Byrd, an attorney, was contacted by Earnest Lamb; a cousin of Felton Lamb’s and may be
an heir. She stated they may go to a more formal probate process on this property. At present
time there are other potential heirs. Family members are in the best positions to formalize the
estate and have a person in place to take care of it. She stated that she is aware of liens on the
property and an IRS lien on the property. If it were to be sold or if anything else happens they
Retaining wall along Rock Street.
would want an appraisal on the property before they made a decision. She is unaware of any
insurance on the property. Irma Walker is the last aunt or uncle in that generation. There are
cousins that are resourceful; one is Kwendeche, an architect. Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s
office, asked how many cousins there were. Ms. Byrd stated there were ten and brothers and
sisters of our Irma Walkers and multiple cousins.
Commissioner Robert Hodge noted there was a small estate in a probate case for a retirement
plan. Ms. Byrd stated that probate may have to be reopened since all of his property was not
included in that case. She thought it would be thirty days or less to reopen the estate and have
him be the appointed representative.
Page Wilson, 324 East 15th Street, stated he was a friend of Felton Lamb. He read the staff
report, and in the guidelines, there are five items listed as conditions for demolitions. He stated
the report from the code officer was included. He feels that the Commission does not have all
the inspections that the guidelines require. He wants the Commission to give Felton’s relatives
time to save the house.
Chair Ted Holder asked if there was someone in the audience that was interested in buying the
house. Kevin Haney stated he has taken a look at the house and thinks it can be saved. He
believes it may be eligible for a tax credit. He said that he would be willing to buy the property.
On the vacant lot, a second house could be built. He is currently doing tax credit projects at 716
and 722 Sherman Street. He stated the house is in bad shape and made need a structural
engineer to see if they could be saved. He believes it would take state and Federal tax credits
to make it work. There was a discussion on tax credits, both state and federal. Mr. Haney
continued that it needs to be rehabilitated soon. He believes the floor systems may be okay but
other portions must come out.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if he had made a formal offer on the property. He
responded not yet but he has talked with David Robinson about the property for investors. Mr.
Haney would like to know more about the tax liens and would be willing to make a formal offer.
Commissioner Hodge asked how many months until it would be too late to rehab the property.
Mr. Haney stated it had little to no roof left and believes that if it was started in June or July of
2019 that it would be possible to save it. Commissioner Hodge stated that if the estate is
reopened, it would take a long time to get that resolved.
Commissioner Amber Jones asked when Mr. Haney started the renovation of 716 and 722
Sherman. Mr. Haney said he had done quite a bit of demolition and had received his building
permit recently. He was unsure of the date of the permit and expected both to be finished in
2019.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell addressed a concern arising from Section Six Relocation and
Demolition and believes that the Commission should be in good shape based on the criteria.
Francis McSwain, 407 E 10th Street, stated for the record that she was on the Commission and
will recuse on the vote. She stated that she had been working in historic preservation for 30
years. She had looked at many structures and only two she felt could not be saved. She
believes this building should come down. The fire was started by vagrants, people mill around
the house, and it is a danger to the neighborhood. Life, health, and safety issues take
precedence in this case. She stated she is familiar with the projects on Sherman Street and
they are slow moving. She appreciates Commissioner Jones’s questions on the timeline. On
tax credits, she stated a project needs at least 51% of original material for a tax credit. She
does not think it would be eligible with all the damaged materials. She stated that this is a
fragile neighborhood, but it is slowly turning over. She continued that it was a lovely lot and the
Commission would make sure what would be built would be appropriate.
Commissioner Jones said that the project needs the roof to qualify and 51% is an important
aspect. Commissioner McSwain stated the roof has had holes in it for years and the timbers
had been wet for years. Chair Holder stated he had experience with a vacant house next door
to his house. He asked are the trees growing through the eaves. He cannot tell by the photos.
In his experience, if the roof was gone, it would have had a lot of damage in the interior. He
asked if the roof was in bad shape why the floors would not be also. Commissioner McSwain
asked the question if a person was hurt on the property, who would be responsible.
Commissioner Hodge asked if this is an appropriate site for new infill. Commissioner McSwain
said it was a good candidate for infill with the full size trees.
Richard Butler, 417 E 10th, stated he was an avid historic preservationist. He stated he had not
formed an opinion on the item, but the house is in an unsafe condition. He stated he can see
holes in the floors. He stated he knew Felton Lamb, Sr. and he was sorry to hear about Felton
Lamb Jr’s death. He visited with Felton about rehabbing the house, but Felton took no action.
He mentioned that with the Arkansas Art Center plans, the neighborhood would be a
construction site soon. He said he would probably be the last person in the world to advocate
for a demolition, with enough money anything could be redone and become contributing. He
cannot take a position at this time. Commissioner Jones commented on his house he restored
at 419 E 10th Street. Mr. Butler said it was also a burnout but was not as bad as this one. He
worked with Tommy Jamison to do research and make it a contributing structure.
Leonard Hollinger, 420 E 11th, lives across the alley from the house. He stated Ms. Bear owned
the property and the home was built in 1830s based on her recollections. (Editor’s note: The
Sanborn Maps of 1891 show a different house on this lot which would be older than the present
house.) He appreciated the predicament that the Lamb family is in but asked them to look at
the neighbors viewpoint, he said it was a fulltime job to keep the elements off this property. He
has seen lots varmints going in and out of the house. If the house is going to be removed it
needs to be removed soon, but he does not believe that it can be rebuilt with any materials on
site.
Kevin Haney asked if it must have 51% to be a tax credit. Commissioner Jones stated there
were guidelines for that. Catherine Barrier stated that reconstructions do not count as tax credit
projects, only rehabilitations.
Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff recommendation was to defer for one month to allow Atty. Byrd
time to start and make process on the probate case. Chair Holder doubted what the benefit
would be to defer one month.
Commissioner Frederick asked if the family have an issue of it being torn down. Ms. Byrd
stated she could not speak to that. Stabilizing the property so that it would not be a danger
would be a priority but she would need to get the family to commit. She would like to give the
family time to try to stabilize the property so it would not be dangerous to the neighborhood was
the goal.
Chair Holder said that within 30 days the family would not only need to decide if they wanted to
keep it but would need to put money into the project. Commissioner Jones says said it would
be hard to keep the weather out since the roof has collapsed.
Commissioner Hodge asked if the estate was solvent. Ms. Byrd said as she did not know that
but there is other property that does have value. She did think that within 30 days she will have
a good understanding of what the family can and cannot do. Commissioner Frederick asked
how long she has been retained as an attorney on this case. Ms. Byrd stated she was hired
maybe 30 days ago and contacted by a cousin Earnest Martin Lamb of Minnesota. Mr. Earnest
Lams said that others were not aware of problems with Felton’s house.
Commissioner McSwain appreciates the situation the family is in and that she had
communicated with Kwendeche. She asked if the Commission deferred for 30 days, what that
really means. She asked for clarity on any benchmarks. Mr. Latimer stated the Commission
has the authority to defer for 30 days, there could be recommendations, but no accountability on
the benchmarks.
Commissioner Hodge does not believe within 30 days anything will be done with the probate
case. He questions who would be liable for any injuries on the property.
Commissioner Frederick noted they have had several months to do something, only this hearing
has prompted them to do something. She does not support the deferral. Chair Holder feels that
this is not safe, it is a separate issue from other issues that Ms. Byrd I dealing with. Even if it
was demolished, the family would still have the land which already has liens upon it. Vice Chair
Russell drove by before the last application and believes it was unsafe then. Commissioner
Hodge stated that stabilization will be very expensive if it could be done.
Commissioner Frederick asked how much it would cost to tear the house down. Mr. Garland
estimates it would be $7500 for demolition and there will be separate landfill fees. The City
would send a bill and place a lien on the property. Commissioner Frederick does not support
deferral.
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the demolition of 1019 Rock Street with the
condition to not damage the stone wall or steps. Commissioner Hodge seconded and the
motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 nays, and two recusals.
Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the
application. Chair Holder believes the safety issue was the biggest issue and that the
Commission does not recommend demolition lightly. Commissioner Frederick stated safety
concerns and the wellbeing of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Russell stated the building had
been demolished by neglect over multiple years and that the fire was the last nail in the coffin.
Commissioner Jones stated that it has remained open too long with unsafe conditions and an
unsure timeline. Commissioner Hodge agreed the Commission does not vote for demolition
lightly but the safety of the neighborhood was important and he did not think it would be very
rehabed any time soon.
Additional Photos:
Front west façade
Front and north façades
South façade
South façade gable close-up
South facade
Close-up in window
Application
Affidavit from Fire Marshall
Email from Building Codes Manager
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the is suance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a
structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and
style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters
within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
Excerpt from State Statue
Text of the City Ordinance for Historic Preservation:
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
Excerpt from City Ordinance
Excerpt from 2016 Guidelines
Excerpt from 2016 Guidelines