Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-26 email Williams to BloomPage 1 of 3 Bloom, Charles From: Roger Williams [qqa@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:55 PM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: RE: Agenda Items "Other Business" Charles, The rectory (the building to be demolished) was built in the 1940s, I believe, and replaced (unfortunately) an earlier Victorian/Colonial Revival structure that had originally served as the rectory. I have never considered it to be significant architecturally, nor could I find anything to the contrary in the copies of neighborhood surveys that I have, and had advised the church accordingly. The landlocked location of the church and school offers little option but to demolish something, and this seems the best alternative. I'm pretty sure everyone at the church has understood from the beginning that the present drawings were conceptual (and used primarily for fundraising purposes, etc.), and that final designs would likely differ slightly, depending on planning and historic district commissions' recommendations. etc. I think we can count on WER to design something functional for the church and school while being architecturally compatible with the church and surrounding neighborhood. We look forward to working with you and planning dept. staff on this. Let me know if there is anything I can do to facilitate this or help in anyway. I will get you something in the mail regarding membership early next week. Thanks again, Roger P. S. Would love to give you a tour of the church sometime. In my opinion, one of the most beautiful in Central Arkansas. "Bloom, Charles" <cbloom@littlerock.org> wrote: We just got out of a meeting with him this morning! Their plans look excellent. We have informed them that they will also need to go in front of the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion. This may slightly alter the design etcetera. We will be working both applications together so we can get the best quality development. Roger... our research indicates that the building to be torn down is not significant to the district... Does that sound correct to you? Also could we get the information on becoming a member of QQA. We have the money through a CLG grant. Thanks, Charles 8/26/2005 Page 2 of 3 Charles Bloom Planner I City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 371-4483 - Fax: (501) 399-3435 -----Original Message ----- From: Roger D. Williams [mailto:gga@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:56 AM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: Re: Agenda Items "Other Business" Charles, Has anyone from WER Architects been in touch with you about the school addition project at St. Edward's Church? It is my understanding that they intend to submit application soon, probably for the October meeting. I serve on their capital campaign committee and have been advising them on the project. Charles Witsell has also been closely involved (his architectural firm), so hopefully we will have addressed any issues in advance. I will be happy to assist you and staff in your report when it gets to that point. Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bloom, Charles" To: "Bozynski, Tony" ; "Carolyn Newbern (E-mail)" ; "Job Serebrov (E-mail)" ; "Kay Tatum (E-mail)" ; "Marshall Peters (E-mail)" ; "Minyard, Brian" ; "Roger D. Williams (E-mail)" ; "Wesley Walls (E-mail)" Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:49 AM Subject: Agenda Items "Other Business" Item 1: This upcoming hearing we will be moving the November hearing date from the 10th to the 1 Ith (Friday). The Sister Cities' Room is available that day. We had briefly touched base on this date at the last hearing. The reason for this change is because it conflicted with the Planning Commission Hearing. 8/26/2005 Page 3 of 3 Item 2: We have an upcoming case in October that will test our "notification of property owners" clause. Currently we require notice be given to "recorded property owners within 150 feet." This statement does not clarify if it is 150 feet from the application area, or from the edge of the property that is owned by the applicant. In most typical COAs this is not a problem because it takes place on a typical lot and is easy to distinguish. An upcoming application (The Korean War Memorial) will be within the MacArthur Park and the nearest "other" property owner is 360 feet away on McMath Avenue. The only person who may need to be notified is the applicant (the City). I believe that we may need to figure out what the appropriate area of influence is. Should we require a hand carry to all adjacent residences that can view the change on Mcmath Avenue and 9th Street, or should we waive the notification requirements because their survey says they own all of the property? If we used the property line as our deciding factor the notification area would be huge and the cost would be expensive. We will vote on whatever our decision is at the hearing. As a side note... I talked to the Realtor selling the house at 420 East 9th Street ye sterday morning. He says that their is an offer on the home for 200K! (It was listed for —217 K.) The Realtor had questions regarding the HDC and I noted him of all the problems with the property (sign, AC units) and let him know that we had handed the matter over to the City Attorney's Office. Yesterday I drove by and the sign was gone and only one AC unit remained... Coincidence? I will see you all next Thursday. Charles Charles Bloom Planner I City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 371-4483 - Fax: (501) 399-3435 8/26/2005