Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2023-027 staff report w minutesDecember 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 NAME: Demolition LOCATION: The Woolford House, 420 E. 9th Street, Little Rock, 72202 OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: Kathy Bryant, SJ Family Digital Assets Joe Rantisi 420 E 9th Street 111 Center Street, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR, 72202 Little Rock, AR, 72201 jrantisi@stephens.com Figure 1. 420 E. 9th, front facade, looking north. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 4 AREA: 0.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District HISTORIC STATUS: Non-Contributing, Ineligible CURRENT ZONING: R4A – Low Density Residential CONSERVATION EASEMENT: None A. BACKGROUND Location The subject property is located at 420 E. 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “The East 82 feet of Lot 7, Block 60, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas”. Context The subject property is the site of the Woolford House, a two-story multi- family residential structure. Built pre- 1885 and displaying the Queen Anne style c.1885, the structure was greatly modified sometime before 1940 with c.1885 original ornamentations removed, vinyl siding installed, the porch significantly altered, and various side wings added. The property sits vacant and boarded at the southwest corner of Commerce and E. 9th Street. Today, the frame residential structure displays an irregular cross- hipped roof, with a central front- facing gable, central single-story front porch with four brick columns, double-hug one-over-one windows, and two brick chimneys. The structure is covered in synthetic siding. A stone retaining wall with walkway piers surrounds the site. Figure 2. Location of 420 E. 9th Street within the MacArthur Park Historic District. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 5 This structure is considered Non-Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District according to the most recent Arkansas Architectural Resources Form (2007), see Attachment D. The subject property first appears in the 1897 Little Rock Sanborn map (Figure 3) as a two- story frame dwelling covered by a wood shingle roof with a central one-story front porch and single-story side porch. Porches were covered by slate or tin roofs. A single-story attachment existed in the rear. By 1913, the rear attachment was enclosed, and a second story overhang constructed. A two-story and a single-story addition was constructed on the west elevation. By 1939, the structure was converted to apartments. The east side porch was enclosed and the single-story addition on the west elevation was expanded. A composition roof covered the entirety of the structure. The footprint and basic materials of the structure experienced little change from 1939 to 1950. The structure is named after the Woolford family whose earliest record of association with the property is dated 1840. Robert S. Woolford (1841-1910) was a “pioneer printer of the city” according to an obituary featured in the Arkansas Democrat in 1910 (Figure 7). The obituary also notes that Robert was born and raised on the property. He is buried at the Figure 3. 420 E 9th Street, Sanborn Map, 1897. Figure 4. 420 E 9th, Sanborn Map, 1913. Figure 5. 420 E. 9th Street, Sanborn Map, 1939. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 6 Oakland-Fraternal Cemetery. Robert and his wife, Anna Woolford (1854-1940), had two daughters, Margaret and Ida (see Figures 15 and 16). Throughout the years, the family often shared the residence with several boarders. In 1928, the property was sold by Anna to a Trust unrelated to the Woolford family. The property consistently changed hands from 1928 to 1941 and again starting in the 1980s. In 2008, the structure was identified by the Housing & Neighborhood Program to be Unsafe/Vacant. Recent Action In September 2006, enforcement action was pursued for the installation of window units without a COA. On February 9, 2005, a COA (HDC2005-002) was applied for and withdrawn for the installation of seven (7) window units by Brian Gray. On March 21, 1995, a COC (HDC1995-002) was issued for a new asphalt shingle roof to Rex Johnson. No previous actions were found on this site. B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The application requests for the permitted demolition of all structures on the property, these being the primary structure. The application notes the stone retaining wall and piers will be preserved and the applicant plans to landscape following removal of the debris. Figure 76. 420 E. 9th Street, Sanborn Map, 1950. Figure 67. Clipping of obituary for Robert S. Woolford from the Arkansas Democrat, published January 10, 1910. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 7 C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: See site photos (Attachment A) and application packet (Attachment E). The application packet includes an environmental site assessment report and asbestos abatement statement by Snyder Environmental 7 Construction, LLC, and a structural study assessment report by Cromwell Architects Engineers. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: At the time of distribution, staff received one letter of support recommending approval of the application (Attachment F). All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock surrounding the site were notified of the public hearing. E. ANALYSIS: The Design Guidelines provide five conditions in which a demolition may be granted by the Commission (page 55). Section VI. 2. 1-5. Demolition states: 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.” Staff finds the primary conditions relating to this property in consideration of demolition are the lack of feasibility in rehabilitation or relocation due to sever structural instability and the loss of its original architectural integrity. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 8 Concerning rehabilitation or relocation feasibility, the structural study assessment report from Cromwell notes the presence of rotten and termite infested wood, collapsed floors, a partially collapsed section of the building, fire damage, and sections of poorly supported floor joists in the crawl space (See page 2 of the report). Concerning architectural integrity, the home was built pre-1885 with records of the Woolford family being present on the site c. 1840. It is possible that the home was built in an earlier style and modified in the Queen Anne style by 1885. By 1940, the structure was greatly modified with original c. 1885 ornamentations removed, vinyl siding installed, the porch significantly altered, and various side wings added. The period of significance of the MacArthur Park Historic District is 1842-1960. Alterations which occurred during this period could been considered to have historic significance. Though there is some evidence of these major alterations occurring in the 1940s—the Sanborn maps and the recent uncovered 1940 photographs—these sources alone fail to provide enough evidence to assert what additions and alterations existed at a point in time within the period of significance. For this reason, the structure is considered Ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Place and Non-Contributing to the MacArthur Park Historic District. It is possible that if the vinyl siding was removed evidence of a structure predating 1885 might be found. The Guidelines also state that significant care should be taken when reviewing an application for demolition to consider the impact to the district. The Little Rock Historic Preservation Code states (Sec. 23-121.) that in consideration of a COA for a demolition, the Commission may defer the matter to consider the following alternatives: “(a) Sources of funding for preservation and restoration activities, if lack of such funds is the reason for the request to demolish. (b) Adaptive use changes, if there are conditions under which the required preservation of a historic landmark would cause undue hardship to the owner or owners, so long as such changes are in keeping with the spirit and intent of this division. (c) An attempt to find a purchaser for the property who would maintain the landmark in a suitable and acceptable manner within the limits of this division. (d) The feasibility of moving the structure to another appropriate location. (e) Any such other solution as may be deemed advisable and in keeping with the spirit and intent of this division.” Considering alternatives to demolition according to Sec. 23-121, the structure is not eligible for state or federal historic rehabilitation tax credits or restoration grants. An attempt to find a purchaser who would maintain the building, or to consider adaptive reuse changes, is unnecessary since the structure does not have landmark status and the current property owner is active in the property’s improvement. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 9 Concerning the MacArthur Park Historic District National Register status, the demolition of the structure at 420 E. 9th Street will not impact the district’s eligibility totals since it is a non-contributing structure that is not eligible in the district due to alternations. Staff has identified the stone retaining wall and piers which surround the property to be a historically significant feature on the site. The walls and piers should be retained and repaired. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. Demolition will avoid damage to the existing stone retaining wall and piers. If damage occurs, the feature will be repaired with existing materials and match the original feature in design, color, texture, and materials. If materials are missing, replacement materials should be in-kind and reviewed by Planning & Development staff. 2. Obtain all required permits. 3. Properly prepare the structure for demolition. 4. Dismantle and remove the structure from the property avoiding damage to surrounding structures. 5. Remove all debris. 6. Any future landscaping or new site design must be reviewed by Historic District Commission staff for compliance. G. COMMISSION ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2023 Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the Commission. Joe Rantisi, agent of the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rantisi said that they did a due diligence investigation to see if the structure could be saved and came to the conclusion that this was impossible, or financially not feasible. The applicant proposes to demolish the structure and plans to landscape the area and preserve the stone retaining wall, as noted by Staff. Commissioner Jones asked if the applicant owned any of the adjacent properties, noting the property present parking issues without utilizing adjacent property. Mr. Rantisi said they did not. Staff confirmed that there was no street parking along 9th Street, there was one public parking space adjacent to the property along Commerce, and the property currently did not have parking access. Commissioner Aleman asked the applicant if there was a future plan for the property beyond temporary landscaping following demolition. Mr. Rantisi said there was no planned future use of the property beyond landscaping. Commissioner Jones asked if there was any consideration for a small park that could be utilized for the surrounding neighborhood rather than the property become a vacant space or weed lot. Mr. Rantisi said the property would have a landscape plan that would support the beautification of the area and the landscaping would be regularly maintained. Commissioner Jones said that it was remarkable that the applicant would choose to purchase the lot and pay almost the same cost in demolition just to landscape the property. Jones wondered if the interest in the lot was in part due to its proximity to the newly renovated Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts. December 7, 2023 ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-027 10 Commissioner Fennell supported Staff’s condition of preserving the stone wall. Commissioner Jones asked how the demolition would be conducted with heavy equipment to avoid damages to the stone wall. Mr. Rantisi said the demolition team would not be able to use heavy equipment due to the proximity of the structure to neighboring structures and the barrier of the stone wall. He said it was a tough property for many reasons regardless of the stone wall. Commissioner Jones asked if the demolition team would be removing the aluminum siding for salvaging and recycling before major demolition. Mr. Rantisi said that the team would remove the siding, determine what was salvageable, and then continue. Jones asked if there were any interior architectural features that were remaining that would be salvaged, like banisters, newel posts—Commissioner Aleman mentioned fireplaces. Mr. Rantisi said that all that was salvageable of architectural value seems to have been removed from the structure previous to purchase. Commissioner Jones opened the floor to public comment. No members of the public chose to comment. Jones asked for a motion. Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve the application with Staff’s recommendations and conditions. Commissioners Fennell and DeGraff seconded the motion. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.