Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2001-008 Memorandum To Chair and Members Of the LRHDC Questions About Parking lot for Curran Conway Hall From Thomas M. Carpenter 08/02/2001OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Little Rock, Arkansas MEMORANDUM TO: Chair and Members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission FROM: Thomas M. Carpente City Attorney Re: Parking lot for Curran Conway Hall DATE: 2 AUG 2001: 2:44 PM The purpose of this memorandum is to address certain questions that have been raised about the authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to approve a parking lot to be built in conjunction with the preservation and restoration of the Curran Conway House. The specific question is raised in light of the Commission's refusal to approve a parking lot request submitted by the Second Baptist Church. As demonstrated below, the decision on one project does not bind the Commission to make a particular decision on the other. BACKGROUND The Commission was created by the City Board of Directors pursuant to express statutory authority.' The purpose of the legislation is to enable municipalities "to take steps to protect places of historic interest within their boundaries."2 One means to assure such protection is to require a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to certain actions. A certificate is required prior to any paving or erection of appurtenant fixtures (including fences and lights) within an historic district.3 So, before a parking lot can be approved within the District, the Commission would have to review the application and set forth the conditions, if any, that would assure the lot had no negative impact upon the historic nature of the district. 1 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-172-201 to 212 (Michie Repl.1998). 2 Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Hist. Dist. Comm., 293 Ark. 155,159,732 S.W.2d 483,485 (1987). 3 Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-208 (a) (1) (Michie Repl.1998). OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY In 1982,-Second Baptist Church sought a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a parking lot across the street from the church. While the church is not included within the boundaries of the District, the parking lot would be on the outer edge of the District. The Commission refused to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness. This denial was upheld on appeal to the Pulaski Chancery Court 4 A second application was made in 1985 on behalf of the church and Buffington Towers Limited Partnership. Essentially, the Church had deeded its parking lot to Buffington Towers — a residential housing facility — and, now needed additional paved parking for church patrons. Again, the Commission denied the application. The decision was appealed to the Pulaski Chancery Court and, again, the Commission was affirmed. This time, however, the church appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and argued, among other things, that the Commission did not possess the authority to deny this application. The Court disagreed. ... while the Commission does not have the authority to grant certain uses of property, it does have the authority to deny certain uses if those uses are `obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the District.' Here, the Commission found that construction of the parking lot as proposed ... would be totally incongruous with the historic aspects of the District, especially in view of the proposed location of the parking lot on a fringe or border area of the District. We cannot say that this finding by the Commission was outside the scope of what the legislature intended with the passage of the Historic District Act. Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Hist. Dist. Comm., 293 Ark. 155, 160; 732 S.W.2d 483, 486 (1987) (emphasis added). It should be noted that the Court did not rule that all parking lots within an historic district are incongruous with the historic nature of the District. Instead, the Court merely held that the Commission's decision in this discrete case was not arbitrary and capricious. The question, then, is whether there are factors in the application for a parking lot for Curran Conway Hall which would distinguish the approval of a parking lot for this location from the denial of a parking lot for Second Baptist Church? 4 Second Baptist Church, 293 Ark. at 158, 732 S.W.2d at 485. Memorandum to the Little Rock Historic District Commission Re: Parking Lot for Curran Conway Hall 2 AUG 2001: 4:03 PM: Page 2 of 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CURRAN CONWAY HALL APPLICATION Before further discussion of this issue from a legal standpoint, one point must be clearly made: This memorandum should in no way be considered as a statement in support, or a statement against, the issuance of a Certificate of Approval for this particular parking lot. It is not the function of this office to advise the Commission on how to make a policy decision. Rather, this memorandum merely addresses the question of whether the Commission is per se arbitrary and capricious should it decide to approve the pending application. The answer is no. Before the Commission is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to create a parking lot behind, and adjacent to, the Curran Conway Hall renovation project. This project is intended to create an official reception area for the City of Little Rock. The home, one of the oldest remaining residential structures within the City, is adjacent to Trapnall Hall, the official reception area for the State of Arkansas. It is also located on the boundaries of the District, and is across the street from the recently constructed main office of the U.S. Postal Service. However, except for the facts that (1) the application seeks approval to construct a panting lot within the District; and, (2) the location is near the border of the District, the similarities with the Second Baptist Church situation cease. Hence, if the Commission is confident that appropriate steps are taken to design, construct and maintain a parking facility that can complement the historic nature of the District, then it is free to grant the Certificate. There are several distinctions between this situation, and that of Second Baptist Church, which clearly support this position. The following discussion will outline just a few of them. 1. The application is not simply for the creation of a parking lot, instead it is for the creation of a parking lot as part of an overall historic preservation project. At issue in the Second Baptist Church case was whether a parking lot adjacent to a structure that was not a part of the District could be constructed. Here, the question is whether a parking lot that supports a structure that is being salvaged and renovated in order to maintain the historic nature of the District, can be approved. While there may be some question as to whether the Commission would have granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to, for example, demolish Curran Conway Hail, the fact is that until this renovation effort was undertaken, the question of demolition was about to be decided by termites and not the Commission. Curran Conway Hall was in abysmal shape. The owner had not been able to live there for a number of years. One section of the structure was on the verge of collapse, and the Memorandum to the Little Rock Historic District Commission Re: Parking Lot for Curran Conway Hall 2 AUG 2001: 4:03 PM: Page 3 of 6 OFFICE OF THE Cm ATTORNEY substructure was in terrible condition because of termite damage. Even so, the City joined with the Little Rock Advertising & Promotion Commission, and the efforts of some incredible citizens,,' to recapture the structure. Garden clubs rescued some of the unusual flora, the City helped to secure title to the property, architects were hired to develop an overall renovation plan, and assistance was provided to shore up the building's foundation problems. Throughout this process, the plan was to restore this structure for use as an official reception area, and as a greeting area for visitors to Little Rock. In addition to the significant historic significance of the structure, this mission was enhanced by its close proximity to exits from I-30. In other words, the fact that a traveler from out of state could see a sign to the City reception area, pull off the freeway, park, and tour the facility — while obtaining information about Little Rock — made the preservation and use of the structure all the more exciting. To contrast this situation with that of Second Baptist Church, the situation there was that the church had voluntarily relinquished its adequate parking facilities to another structure, and then wanted to create a stand-alone parking facility on the border of the District. Absolutely no historic preservation was part of the Second Baptist application. Moreover, the church wanted to impact property within the District because of something it had done with property outside the District. Here, the City wishes to create a parking lot within the District to enhance the viability of an historic and significant renovation project within the District. In short, the application should be reviewed as part of an overall renovation project, and not as a stand-alone application to construct a parking lot. 2. The parking lot is not on the edge of the District. A second significant difference is that this parking lot will be located behind Curran Conway Hall. While entry will be from the street behind Curran Conway Hall, the , actual border of the District will not be marred with a mere parking lot. The Second Baptist Church application, however, merely built a parking lot on the edge of the District. The view of the lot from the border of the District was not obstructed by a significant historical renovation. 5 While there are numerous citizens who donated countless hours to this project, the City would be remiss not to mention the extraordinary preservation efforts of Little Rock attorney John Gill. Even when it appeared that funds for renovation were simply not available, Mr. Gill worked diligently to turn a concept into a reality. Memorandum to the Little Rock Historic District Commission Re: Parking Lot for Curran Conway Hall 2 AUG 2001: 4:03 PM: Page 4 of 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 3. The parking lot can actually serve two historic structures. This particular parking lot is configured in such a manner that it not only can serve functions at Curran Conway Hall, but it can also be used to serve overflow needs for functions at Trapnall Hall. While some overflow parking is probably available at the postal facility, during certain peak seasons — e.g., Christmas — such availability can be more limited. Yet, this parking lot behind Curran Conway Hall will also be adjacent to Trapnall Hall, will be off the street, and will provide alternatives for guests at that historic facility. 4. The Commission has approved parking facilities within the District that are part of other preservation efforts within the District. To approve this particular parking lot would not set a new precedent. The Commission might consider, for example, the decision to permit the creation of paved parking as part of the renovation of Kramer School.6 The basic property at Kramer School — which became an apartment facility for aspiring artists — was simple school property. The southern playground was essentially a paved surface, but it was not a parking lot. The northern playground was a parking facility. However, to assure that the facility could succeed as an apartment structure, it was necessary to provide off-street parking for the tenants. Hence, the southern playground was turned into a parking lot within the District. This parking lot, incidentally, was within a block of the eastern boundary of the District. The point is that the approval of a parking,lot adjacent to, and supportive of, a significant historical renovation — like Curran Conway Hall — is totally consistent with prior actions of the Commission. In short, this particular application is not bound, in any way, to the Commission's prior refusal to permit Second Baptist Church to build a stand-alone parking lot on the edge of the District. Please let me know if you need any additional information. 6 This historic school located at the corner of Eighth and Ringo Streets was the subject of considerable public discussion and debate. A former owner, who desired to simply demolish the structure when he abandoned plans for its renovation, even sued the City and alleged that the Commission's to approve demolition violated property rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This office defended the Commission and succeeded in getting the allegations dismissed. Roy v. City of Little Rock, 902 F.Supp. 871 (E.D. Ark. 1995). Memorandum to the Little Rock Historic District Commission Re: Parking Lot for Curran Conway Hall 2 AUG 2001: 4:03 PM: Page 5 of 6 OFFICE OF THE Cm ATTORNEY TMC:ct CC. Cy Carney, City Manager Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager Jim Lawson, Director of Planning & Development Jimmy Pritchett, Director of Housing & Neighborhood Programs -- anne guthrie, Historic Preservation Administrator Memorandum to the Little Rock Historic District Commission Re: Parking Lot for Curran Conway Hall 2 AUG 2001: 4:03 PM: Page 6 of 6