The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-06-29 AHPP letter with jameson letter attachedF�31___w June 29, 2016 Q1ect°r request for demolition of the house located at 113 East 9"' Street in Little THE DEPARTMENT U -P ARKAN5A5 Rock that was submitted to the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The HERITAGE Mr. Mark Brown Arkansas Arts Council 400 West 18'h Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Asa Hutchinson Govemor Mr. Brown: Stacy Hurst I am writing to provide an opinion from our agency regarding your recent Q1ect°r request for demolition of the house located at 113 East 9"' Street in Little Cultural Center Rock that was submitted to the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The Old State House Museum request for input from our agency apparently was an informal request made by Arkansas Arts Council one of the commission members. As you know, the property is currently designated as a non-contributing property in the MacArthur Park Historic Arkansas Natural District, mainly due to unsympathetic additions and material alterations to the Heritage Commission front fagade, as well as the alteration and elimination of window and door Delta Cultural Center openings. Historic Arkansas Museum I made a site visit to the property with you on May 29th in order to gain a www.arkansascreservation.com An Equal Opportunity Employer Ce: Brian Minyard general sense of both the historic and structural integrity the building. In Mosaic Templars looking over the property and examining the pest control company's findings, Cultural Center the building contractor's assessment and the staff report prepared by city staff, Old State House Museum it is obvious that the property requires a substantial amount of work in order to make it habitable and safe. Additional work and expense would be required to make the property a contributing building in the historic district. a , The role of our agency is to help identify and protect historic resources in the ARKANSAS HISTORIC state. Through the Certified Local Government program, we delegate some of PRESERVATION PROGRAM our responsibilities for our overarching role to the local government level. In this case, the decision to approve or reject a Certification of Appropriateness for demolition rests solely with the city's historic district commission. The Our Fuwea ordinance and guidelines for the commission allow for approval of demolition requests based on, among other factors, "economic hardship" based on the "value and potential return of the property". If, after careful review of the :nl - conditions and other circumstances regarding this property, the commission approves a request for demolition, we would have no objections. If you need any additional clarification regarding our position on this matter, please let us know. 323 Center Street, Suite 1500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Sincerely, (601) 324-9880 fax: (501) 324-91$4r 324-9184 f;�� 6�e tdd: 711 �_ e-mail: info_ Cc-arkansascreservation.org Brian Driscoll Technical Assistance Coordinator website: www.arkansascreservation.com An Equal Opportunity Employer Ce: Brian Minyard ARCHITECTS P.A. July 8, 2016 Mr. Mark Brown / Ms. Jill Judy 400 W. 181h Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: 113 E. 91h Street Dear Mark and Jill: Per your request, 1 walked through 113 E. 91h with your property manager this morning and offer the following commentary about the existing structure, its condition, and its potential for rehabilitation vs. demolition, In general, the building is in poor condition and has received many alterations, most of which were poorly executed, removed historic fabric, and were not historically compatible. Limited original fabric is present in the form of some 2nd floor original windows, original stair (less balustrade), and very limited window and door trim. No original doors were noted. Original plaster has been substantially veneered with gypsum board. Original stair, less balustrade. P�.'.�i NE 2" floor room. This is one of only two spaces with original trim and base. 300 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-666-6600 FAX 501-666-5177 www.jamesonarchifects.com First floor west side. Typ. Interior waif with GB added over plaster w/ water damage First floor rear apartment. First floor east side at bay, devoid of historic fabric. Multiple areas of soft and sloping floors were noted, which support the findings of Curry's Pest Control and Matt Foster Construction, 21 The brick veneer is not original to the structure and is the most problematic issue. This point is supported by the Sanborn maps, which do not indicate brick veneer in 1892 but do indicate veneer by 1939. This is further supported by the several original shutter hinges in place on window frames that do not allow for the added depth of the brick veneer; the fact that the corbeled cornice shows some brick with 8 holes, indicative of being laid in a more modern era; the deeply recessed north gable end, still showing the plane of the original front wall with its original fascia and soffit; and the very unusual detail of corbelled brick and gutter. With the veneer being added, it is likely not supported adequately at the foundation and likely was added without the use masonry wall ties. This conclusion is further supported by the extent of previous repairs that have been attempted and the failure of the veneer on the east side, all of which have contributed to moisture problems and related decay. The remaining veneer would be very challenging to repair in place, thus removal would probably be the best solution. Front elevation. Note shutter hinges at windows (which cannot function with brick veneer) and the recessed original gable end with original fascia/soffit. If the brick were to be removed, there is likely evidence of original wood siding (empty nail holes, etc.) or the some siding could still possibly be in place. If in place, it is likely in very poor condition due to leaks, termites, condensation, etc. Then the question arises as to whether or not the added brick veneer is significant, due to how long it has been in place, even though poorly implemented. Regardless of which direction would be chosen, the expense for either alternative would be very significant, in addition to all the other issues present. 31 In conclusion, it is not a question of whether or not this structure can be rehabilitated. With unlimited funding, amazing things can be done — but the real question is would it make financial sense. In this case, regretfully the balance seems to shift to away from rehabilitation. Referencing the HDC staff report, I believe that this property meets conditions 3 through 5 wherein demolition permits may be granted if: 3) Economic hardship relating to the cost of rehabilitation vs. the potential return; 4) the building has lost its architectural integrity (and in this case has never has been contributing to the district); and 5) no other reasonable alternative is feasible. I hope you find this analysis useful. If you have any questions, please call or email. Cordially, JAMESON Architects PA Tommy Jameson, AIA tommy@iamesonarchitects.com 41 Page