Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 07-19-1982July 19, 1982 Item No. 4 -w Z-3856 Owner: Steve Tegethoff Address:• 514 East 9th Street Description: Long legal Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential variance Requested: Relief from bulk and area provisions of Section 43-36 to permit a 6' 10" rear yard for an addition. Present Use of Property: Multifamily Proposed Use of Property: Same expanded STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is renovating the existing apartment on this site and is requesting setback variances which will permit a major addition to the existing carriage house. The addition onto the carriage house will permit its conversion into another apartment unit. There is no on -site parking for this property. The property shown immediately northeast of the apartment site is used for parking, as is the property which would tie these two parcels into an ""L" shaped lot. Sole access to both these parking areas is from two drives which open onto 8th Street to the north an cross someone else's property. To our knowledge, there is no legal right of access to these ,properties. The structural relationships of all of the properties in this areas are very tight. It appears that it would be unwise to permit additional expansion of structures within this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. a July 19, 1982 Item No. 47 Continued BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The applicant stated that the property had been purchased 18 months previously and that the main structure had been converted from an 8-unit boarding house to a 4-unit apartment. He stated that the intention was to convert the carriage house into a fifth apartment unit. He stated that the carriage house has no plumbing at the present time and that the addition would be necessary in order to provide those facilities. He stated that the access drive to their parking area was owned by Quapaw Realty Company and that they have permission to use it for their -access. After lengthy discussion, the Board moved to approve the application as filed with the condition that the applicant provide an adequate number of parking spaces for the five units proposed. The motion passed - 4 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AGENDA 3 SEPTEMBER 1998 Sister Cities Conference Room, 5:00 p.m. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum d'- 4k oo4 e. atu C, 4,,u. -3 II. Approval of Minutes -t Zoo III. Public Hearing A te' as, ckoh kj.,,4,m Request Agenda Item #1 Applicant: Betty Deislinger Address: 1000 Rock Street.` Request: Rehabilitate structure and install storm windows Request Agenda Item #2 Applicant: Robert E. Kennedy AAddress: 514 East 9th Street Request: Rehabilitate q amulti-family structure f1r, ( J Request Agenda Item #3 Applicant: Second Baptist Church Address: 619 Cumberland and 618 Rock streets Request: Construct a 35-space parking lot IV. New and Old Business ♦ MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association Representative ♦ Artificial siding at 1417 Cumberland ♦ Final inspection of new construction at 1304 Cumberland ♦ Historic Preservation Grants V. Adjournment Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 2 the period (and as copying Becky Witsell's studio at 1011 Scott,) and on the east, the replacement of the additional door with an appropriate window; rehabilitation of the front porch (railing, columns, flooring, steps, etc); removal of permastone siding; and installation of storm windows for energy and security purposes. The rehab plans were detailed, and while there is no time table for the work, it is being prioritized. Greer asked about the standing seamed metal roof that was applied recently on the structure's west elevation; ,the applicant stated that it replaced an old and leaking metal roof, and the replacement is of good quality. The western -most addition on the rear is rotten, is not original to the house and plans are to remove it. Discussion focused on the west dormer, which in poor condition and an outbuilding along the alley, which is slated for removal. Storm windows were discussed as to the type; there has been no decision as to the selection, type, color, etc. except what is recommended by the design guidelines. Greer stated that instead of anodized aluminum storm windows, it should be baked enamel aluminum windows. Staff recommendations were read into the record. The applicant was asked if the structure was single-family -- two meters were installed to accommodate a small apartment in the southwest section of the structure with entry gained from the rear. A motion was made that the application be approved (according to the staff recommendations) with conditions and the storm window changes. Greer stated that the drawing for the windows on the east elevation did not have sufficient detail for approval and that a reference be made to the Bragg cottage on Scott Street for the approval and duplication of the windows. He also expressed concern with the back porch, due to its high visibility on a corner, and recommended that staff review the plans for the rear addition improvements. A vote was taken and the application was unanimously approved with conditions. Marratt rejoined the LRHBC meeting after the vote. The second application was: Applicant: Bob Kennedy Address: 514 East 9th Street Request: Rehabilitate multiple -family structure's exterior and interior The applicant presented the proposed work. A listing of the proposed work included the following: roof repair; replace rotten front porch decking; remove rotten fascia and soffit; remove siding on rear additions; repair windows, replace floor joists; install missing railing; install new water lines; remove southeast chimney and rear storage outbuilding. He presented the items individually and in more detail, but stated that he had decided to take off the outbuilding's demolition from the listing and to retain the southeast chimney. r Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 3 There was discussion regarding the scope of the work, the lack of details and the applicant's understanding of the proposed work. The applicant is doing the majority of the work himself, especially the interior, but he had hired a contractor for the new roof and porch decking. Marratt expressed his concern about several items, such as the new porch decking, foundation problems and the chimney. Greer asked how many apartments were proposed -- three and the applicant would occupy two. The issue of parking and its access for the apartments was discussed. The subject property does not have on -site, off-street parking, and future tenants will use the interior parking on property not owned by the applicant. The applicant owns property at 511 E. 8th Street (behind the subject property on the same block) and the tenants of the 9th Street apartments would park in the same location. There is an interior area in the middle of the block, which is utilized for parking by several apartments on the block. This interior area, due to the lay -out, is owned by various people; there has been an understood agreement that the tenants may park in the area. Access to the interior parking is a problem especially for the apartments facing 9th, and the subject property in particular as there is no driveway or entry to the interior parking from 9th. Staff stated that zoning was consulted to ensure that compliance with parking requirements was met; the subject property is a nonconforming use and because the owner is decreasing the density of the structures, the parking requirements are met. Greer opened the discussion of the application to the floor. An adjacent property owner, Randy Morning, introduced himself and stated that he was concerned about the apartments. He stated that the previous tenants of the apartments had a complete disregard for adjacent property. He had invested in and rehabbed a duplex east of the subject property and is concerned that tenants of the subject property will abuse his property, its front yard, driveway and off-street parking. Using the abstract, Morning pointed out the property oWvnership, the interior use of the block for parking, etc. He also talked about fencing his property to minimize pedestrian traffic I Gordon asked the applicant questions about the work and when he anticipated the completion date -- October 1. Marratt emphasized the close proximity of structures on 9th and how rehab projects easily affect adjacent structures, especially with such close setbacks. He expressed reservations about the scope of work. Jay Core, a property owner on the west (ca. 1890s apartments), expressed his concern about the quality of rehab work. He stated that Kennedy's rental property on E. 8th is not in good condition. If quality of workmanship of a rehab project is lacking, then the quality of tenants will reflect that. The subject property is one of the block's finest structure, and he is concerned about it lacking the quality of work required of such a structure, especially with the problems that it appears to have. Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 4 C. Greer asked Black about the LRHDC's charge in regard to parking requirements for apartments that are being rehabbed. He reiterated what was stated earlier about the structure being nonconforming and meeting the regulations. Gordon stated that the structure needs to be protected, and there is neighborhood concern about the quality of rehab work. Kennedy's lawyer, Mosely, stated that the owner, contractor and neighbors need to get together to review the plans and work. Greer stated that the listing of proposed work is not detailed enough; each item should be described in greater detail as to allow more information about the each work. Marratt stated that additional research would answer some of the questions that the neighbors and LRHDC have regarding the scope of work being sympathetic to the architectural integrity of the structure. He also recommended that an architect be consulted for the design of the exterior rehab work. Carol Zoeller, a neighoring property owner, expressed concern about the interior lot's lack of maintenance by the applicant and wanted assurance that the 9th Street property would not be maintained in the same fashion. Morning stated concern as well about the debris in the subject property's outbuilding that needs to be removed. Marratt asked for a code enforcement perspective about the subject property, Purifoy stated that the property is not listed as unsafe, and he has not performed a rental inspection. The property owner is under a time limit to rehab the property within six months. Marratt made a motion that the application be deferred for thirty (30) days and that a more detailed plan be presented of the exterior work at the next meeting. A building permit cannot be issued, but interior work may continue. The vote was unanimous that the application be deferred for 34 days. A letter from staff will delineate what the applicant is able to d❑ during the interim period. The third application considered was: Applicant: Second Baptist Church Address. 619 Cumberland and 618 Rock streets Request: Construction of 35-space parking lot This COA had been deferred from the August meeting, at the applicant's request. Judy Henry, a lawyer and a member of the congregation, introduced herself, Ray Higgins (pastor), Steve Elliott (architect) and Lendall Lay. She stated that the congregation has been downtown since 1 884 and is a good neighbor to the area and the historic district. The church's concern with urban issues is demonstrated by its involvement in the Buffington retirement facility, the church's daycare, Stewpot and its purchase of Second Place, which is located within the designated historic district. The applicant is asking the LRHDC for a parking lot; their passion for the parking lot relates to people, which is how the church is able to grow; and they are experiencing City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY: V. Anne Guthrie DATE: August 1998 APPLICANT: Robert E. Kennedy ADDRESS: 514 East 9th Street COA REQUEST: Rehabilitate structure's interior and exterior as multi -family PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The applicant bought the structure in July 1998; he also owns rental property on 8th Street. The owner talked with staff prior to purchase, and the COA process was explained. Staff issued a memorandum in July 1998, allowing the owner to obtain a building permit; a copy of this is provided. Prior to its purchase, the structure was vacant for over a year and served as a five -unit apartment complex. With the exception of four structures on the block that are single-family, the remaining seven are apartments; the new fire station is east of this location. The project is north of 1-630, on the north side of 9th and across the street from the Arkansas Arts Center. The structure, circa 1905, is a Colonial Revival two -storied brick and listed as contributing structure in the historic district. The applicant intends to perform the following work: roof replacement; fascia and soffit removal and repair; removal of siding on rear addition; repair windows; replace joists and sill; tuck -point; front porch decking; new water lines; repair gas lines; remove southeast chimney; and demolish outbuilding. Refer to the attached work list. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: Prior to the COA application, but after obtaining a building permit, staff received three phone calls within three days regarding the quality of work, its scope and compliance. There is concern that the structure is not being rehabilitated and will not be maintained properly. Also, a concern is that there is no existing off-street, on -site parking to accommodate the apartments, which will place additional burden on adjacent property and right-of-way areas. Staff had several conversations with the owner regarding the work and procedure, and there may have been a misinterpretation of "general repair work" in warranting a COA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of staff that the project be approved with the following conditions: ♦ all repairs shall meet city code and regulations ♦ the chimney shall be repaired (tuckpointed, etc.) and not demolished ♦ the outbuilding shall not be demolished as it is architecturally significant ♦ off-street parking needs shall be considered and addressed appropriately ♦ repair rather than replacement is the preferred approach to particular aspects of the rehabilitation (according to the Secretary of Interior's guidelines) ♦ if new materials are used, they shall be sympathetic to the architecture ♦ should the scope of work change, other than what is submitted, staff and the LRHDC will be notified, consulted and appropriate actions taken City of Little Rock Is HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY: V. Anne Guthrie DATE: 24 November 1998 APPLICANT: Robert E. Kennedy ADDRESS: 514 East 9th Street COA REQUEST: Rehabilitate structure's interior and exterior as multi -family PROJECT BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The applicant bought the structure in July 1998; staff talked with the applicant prior to purchase, and the COA process was explained. The applicant also owns rental property at 511 8th Street, which is on the same block, just north of the subject property. Staff issued a memorandum in July 1998, allowing the owner to obtain a building permit for repair work; a copy of the memo is provided. Prior to its purchase, the structure was vacant for over a year and served as a five -unit apartment complex. With the exception of four structures that are single-family, the remaining block consists of seven, two -storied apartments; the new fire station is east of this location. The project is north of 1-630, on the north side of 9th and across the street from the Arkansas Arts Center. The structure, circa 1905, is a Colonial Revival two -storied brick and listed as contributing to the historic district. The applicant intends to perform the following work: roof replacement; fascia and soffit repair; removal of siding on rear addition; window repair; replace joists and sill; tuck - point brick exterior; front porch decking; and chimney repairs. The plans were added at the request of the LRHDC to provide a detailed scope of work that the project requires. For this project request, attachments include the following: previous application packet; a letter to the applicant listing issues that are to be addressed due to the deferral; four pages of architectural plans; a letter from zoning administrator, Dana Carney, along with additional information regarding zoning, parking requirements and legal description and layout of subject site. The application was deferred by the LRHDC in September and the applicant has deferred it twice. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND REACTION: Prior to the COA application, but after obtaining a building permit, staff received three phone calls within three days regarding the quality of work, its scope and compliance. There is concern that the structure is not being rehabilitated properly and that there is no existing off-street, on -site parking to accommodate the apartments. Staff Report and Recommendations Page Two A letter was written to the applicant following the application's deferral at the September meeting; a copy is enclosed. The letter itemizes the issues that the applicant must address prior to the next meeting. Foremost of concern is the front porch work, the materials to be used and the extent of window repair; the parking is an issue with the adjacent property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of staff that the project be approved with the following conditions: ♦ all work shall follow the architectural plans as submitted ♦ all repairs shall meet city code and regulations ♦ the outbuilding in the north rear yard shall remain standing ♦ if new materials are used, they shall be sympathetic to the architecture ♦ off-street parking needs are addressed appropriately and meet adjacent owners approval ♦ pedestrian traffic shall be through the subject property and not the adjacent owners ♦ should the scope of work change, other than what is submitted, staff and the LRHDC will be notified prior to implementation and appropriate actions taken.