Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout113 e 9thStaff ReportPage 1 of 12 DATE: July 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy ADDRESS: 113 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Demolition of Structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 113 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “West 40’ of Lots 11 and 12 except the East 11.5’ of the south 31’ Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Cohn House was built in 1889 as a single family house. (There is an addition Cohn House at 904 Scott built in 1871.) The 2006 survey form states: “c. 1895 residence with major alterations.” Also noted is “first floor façade/ porch addition; rear concrete block addition.” It is considered a “Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for demolition of the structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 2 of 12 Google Street view of north and west elevation Google Street view of east elevation Photo from 1988 Survey Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 65 of the Guidelines it states under the “Guidelines of Relocation and Demolition”: Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the Page 3 of 12 building is compatible with the district’s architectural character in regards to style, period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a “contributing” historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status. Demolition by neglect occurs when routine maintenance procedures are not followed, allowing damage from weather, water, insects or animals. Proper routine maintenance and/or rehabilitation are strongly recommended. Care should be taken when reviewing for an application for demolition of a structure that was not 50 years old at the time of the survey, but are now or close to 50 years old at the time of application. If the district was resurveyed, these buildings may be contributing, but may not be contributing. These applications should be taken on a case by case basis and carefully examine the architecture of the individual building as well as their context within the district. Under certain conditions, however, demolition permits may be granted by the Historic District Commission: 1. The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer, architect, or other person expert in historic preservation. 2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of a building. 3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not to the financial status of the property owner. 4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer contributes to the district. 5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the building. In principal, it is undesirable to demolish buildings in the Historic District partly because that part of the urban fabric is removed. A house removed in a blockface of six houses results in a gap tooth appearance. Corner buildings are important. The applicant has provided two pieces of documentation concerning the condition of the structure. The first is from Curry’s Pest control that states that there is active termite activity occurring in two locations of the building noted by (A) on the plan. There are also notes of water rot to subfloor and joists around plumbing lines. Termite activity is also noted in those areas of rotted joists and subfloors. There is old termite damage to the plate and sill on th e west wall. On the cover letter, it states that these areas will require extensive repairs. The second letter is from Matt Foster, MWF Construction. It states that the foundation has not Page 4 of 12 been repaired or maintained over the lifetime of the house and that the joist and support beams would need to be replaced. He also notes termite damage. He continues that if the house were to be leveled, extensive plaster repair would be needed. Another point is that the brick veneer is damaged and missing in some spots. The roof has allowed for water intrusion and compromising the floor on the second level. Staff inspected the interior and exterior of the structure on March 31, 2016. The house was separated into three apartments, one upper and two lower. The one story portion of the house in the rear is a separate apartment. The stairwell has been walled in and the banister has been removed or is hidden. There is little historic door trim and window trim left in the structure. The floors are very uneven, but there are no gaping holes. The brick on the house had been sandblasted in the past by a previous owner, Mary Buchannan. She told Staff that after she sandblasted it, the brick fell off of the bay on the east of the house. She subsequently painted the rest of the brick in an effort to waterproof it. The porch on the front of the house was renovated by Yandell Johnson, a modernist architect that practiced locally. This is shown in the 1939-1950 Sanborn map. No historic photos of the house, prior to the Johnson remodeling, are known to exist. The house may not be salvageable due to the termite and water damage and lack of preventative maintenance over the years. If the building is demolished, care should be taken to remove all construction debris and maintain a clean site afterwards. Removal of any architectural fragments for reuse would be positive. Details of Sanborn Maps: 1892 Sanborn Map 1939 Sanborn Map 1939-1950 Sanborn Map The Sanborn maps above show the changes to the area. In 1892, there was another house at 111 E. 9th to the west of the project site that also faced north. There are two one story sheds in the rear of the property. By 1939, the sheds had been replaced by the concrete structure that is there now for automobile storage and stalls. The house at 111 E 9th had been removed. Staff has been told that the house at 900 Scott had been moved south sometime between 1892 and 1939 to 904 Scott and was turned into a clinic. A new building (rooming house) was built on the corner. By the 1939-1950 map, the house at 113 E 9th had been altered on the front and an addition on the southwest corner of the house had been completed. Since the last map, the structure at 900 Scott has been removed, the house at 908 burned last year, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete garage stalls on the site had been removed. Page 5 of 12 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. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Vice-Chair Jeremiah Russell made a request that Staff check the minutes for the date of construction for this structure. Mark Brown and Jill Judy were present as applicants. Ms. Judy spoke that they bought the building six months ago and that it had been vacant for a while. She noted that they had saved a lot of buildings in the area. She spoke of issues with dumpster placement and parking. She talked about the configuration of the lots and that the demolition of this building would not change the percentage of contributing and non-contributing nor would it change the fabric of the neighborhood. Without historic photos, there is no way to make it contributing. She continued to speak of the faults in the foundation and that the brick veneer would have to be replaced. She stated that the brick may not be original to the structure. Mark Brown stated that the brick has settled around the windows and that the new bricks would not make it historic. Vice Chair Russell asked if they were demolishing the structure for access. What was the intent of the demolition? He continued to ask if they intended to build anything. The applicant clarified that they did not intend to erect a building on this property. He mentioned that 908 was vacant now and with the empty lot on the corner, it would be ideal to have houses in those spots. Ms. Judy stated that there is only five feet of access on the side of the house at 113 E 9th. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if the reason to tear it down was for trash dumpster and parking. Mr. Brown replied that it was an eyesore and that it was not worth rebuilding. The demolition was part of the overall revitalization. Ms. Judy stated that there was no access to the either back yard for parking. She stated that there was no on-street parking or back yard parking. Commissioner Wilson stated that this neighborhood was not car-centric. To that, Ms. Judy asked if he would build something with no parking. Commissioner Wilson replied that they can park in the street. Mr. Brown commented that the building used to be a slum building. They received a total of $1500.00 per month in rents as is. When asked, he replied that there was nothing in this building. Vice Chair Russell agreed that it was an eyesore, but stated that neighborhood revitalization is not an empty lot. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that demolitions are the most serious COAs that the Commission hears. She noted the letter from Matt Foster and the defects of the building. She asked if they would consider deferring to get a letter from a preservation professional, AHPP, an engineer, etc. to help clarify the issue. Ms. Judy stated that they owned three buildings on this block and did not want a slum property there. She stated that it was economically unfeasible to rehab the structure. Page 6 of 12 Commissioner Wilson said that preservation is the number one duty of the Commission. He wants to be responsible and follow the process. He would be amenable to the deferral. He asked who had the qualifications other than the city to make the judgement on if it cannot be rehabbed. Commissioner Johnson suggested that they ask Bryan Driscoll of AHPP to visit the property. She commented that it would be an easier vote if there was someone in the preservation field to say that demolition was appropriate. A third party opinion would be a stronger case. It was discussed and agreed that this deferral was at the request of the Commission. The applicant asked for the July meeting. The deferral was requested for two months till the July meeting for the purpose of gathering some information from an independent source. A motion was made to defer to the July 2016 hearing by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position (QQA) and 1 recusal (Kelley). STAFF UPDATE: July 11, 2016 Staff has not been in communication with the applicant since the last hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016 Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the new information since the last hearing. He summarized the letters from AHPP and from Tommy Jameson, Architect on the building. He stated that Staff’s recommendation is still approval of the demolition. Commissioner Dick Kelley recused himself from the discussion and the room at this time. Owners Mark Brown and Jill Judy were there to represent the item. Mr. Brown said that it was a rare occurrence to ask for a demolition of a structure in the district. He wanted feedback on the item and has talked to AHPP and Bryan Driscoll visited the site. Ms. Judy then suggested that they contact Tommy Jameson for an opinion on the demolition. Mr. Brown said that the economic return was not there on that building. They have restored buildings before and have done it successfully but this building will never be contributing. It will be a Disneyland house. There are no photos to support what it looked like. The contractor letter and the letter from the termite company are still valid and Staff recommends demolition. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked what the proposed use is. Mr. Brown spoke of 904 Scott. If allowed, it would be nice to have parking for 904 Scott on this site. 113 E 9 th sites on a small lot and has no access to its back yard. Ms. Judy added that this was part of 900 Scott at one time, but there is no alley for access. The access for this lot has to be from 9th street. Mr. Tommy Jameson stated that he was available to answer any questions concerning his letter. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that it was always difficult to recommend demolition of a structure. She offered the following points. 1) It is non-contributing. 2) There is no Page 7 of 12 documentation to make it contributing. 3) It has messy brick and inappropriately applied brick. 4) It has structural issues. 5) It has termite damage. 6) It has lost all architectural integrity. And 7) The letter from Tommy Jameson recommending demolition. Vice Chair Russell supports the demolition on this item but the Commission must think of the future use. Vacant lots do not help the neighborhood. Ms. Judy stated that they have a beautiful historic district that needs access, we like our cars and 904 Scott Street is landlocked for access to the back yard. She continued how were they going to be able to save 904 if they had no parking for the apartments? The city does not have parking on the street. Commissioner Becky Pekar asked if they had plans to landscape the parking area. Vice Chair Russell stated that the city requires landscaping in the parking lots. Vice Chair Russell asked about the concrete wall in the rear. Ms. Judy said that she wanted it gone. The concrete wall is owned by 904 Scott Street. Vice Chair Russel spoke of the viability of the neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated that he does not own the corner lot. Commissioner Pekar agreed that the building is an eyesore and also agrees that people want parking but it would be better if we were not to have so many cars. Chair BJ Bowen stated that he could understand why they would want it demolished. No citizens chose to speak on this item. Vice Chair Russell stated that he would support the demolition on their item. He has seen their work in the neighborhood and hopes that the parking lot is beneficial to the vitality of the neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the demolition with staff recommendations by Vice Chair Russell and seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 recusal (Kelley) and two open positions. Commissioner Dick Kelley rejoined the meeting at this time. Page 8 of 12 Application Page 9 of 12 Cover Letter Page 10 of 12 Letter from Curry’s Pest Control Page 11 of 12 Sketch from Curry’s Pest Control Page 12 of 12 Letter from MWF Matt Foster