Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1998-019 August 6 1998 Meeting MinutesCity of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 6 AUGUST 1998 MEETING MINUTES Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice Chair Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Bruce Moore Tony Black Guests: Rick Purifoy, Code Enforcement Missy McSwain, AHPP rep The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken; and as all commissioners were present (and a subsequent quorum), the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was: Applicant: Second Baptist Church Address: 619 Cumberland and 618 Rock streets Request: Construction of parking lot Since there was confusion as to the applicable plans and not sufficient information, a motion was made and passed that the application be deferred until the next meeting. The second COA to be considered was: Applicant: Argie L. Austin Address: 1402 Commerce Request: Demolition of garage, north section The applicant's son, Dennis, presented the request, which is to demolish the northern portion of a structure utilized as a garage and located on the property's rear yard, along the alley. The two -storied structure is connected by means of a common wall with the southern portion, which is under separate ownership. The demolition of the south portion was approved in 1994, but due to dual ownership of the structure, it was never demolished. Rick Purifoy, code enforcement officer, stated that the roof collapsed into the structure and is an unsafe building; the garage has been on the city's "Unsafe and Vacant Structure" listing since 1993. Included in the request was a chain link metal fence (already used in the rear yard's fencing), to replace the area of the garage, thereby fully enclosing the rear yard. The area to be fenced is the garage's site and is 38.1 linear feet (19.9' along the alley and 18.2' in the southwest corner). Discussion focused on the appropriateness of chain link, but its use is dictated by the demolition, closing the gap, using the same material SLCity 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 II. Approval of Minutes 613 III. Public Hearing A � ckVA lt.Lo",'t4 Request Agenda Item #1 Applicant: Betty Deislinger 0��� Address: 1000 Rock Street Request: Rehabilitate structure and install storm windows Request Agenda Item #2 Applicant: Robert E. Kennedy Address: 514 East 9tn Street Request: Rehabilitate a multi -family structuref1f I F' 1 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 4 C. Greer asked Black about the LRHDC's charge in regard to parking requirements for apartments that are being rehabbed. He m� iterated 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 rehab 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 30 days. A letter from staff will delineate what the applicant is able to do 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 1884 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 Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 5 substantial growth. She presented an overview of the church, its growth, needs and gave numbers for attendance of the two services the previous Sunday; She stated that the staff report was incorrect in terms of the number of parking lot spaces the church presently has on the east side of Cumberland (12 not 15) and the Sunday morning survey of church parking, which was an informal survey performed by staff on four different Sundays. Also, she added that the number of spaces available to the church, while owned by them, are leased to Buffington (southwest corner of 7th and Cumberland); also the church owns the parking lot on the south side of 8th. The report mentions the three area churches but does not mention the competition for parking. Addressing the church's concern for safety, she stated that there is a safety monster in downtown (while parked on t he street, her car was broken into). If safe parking cannot be provided by the church, they cannot attract new members. Many members have moved to other churches due to lack of safety and on -street parking. With the proposed lot, the church hopes to cure the safety issue by controlling its safety and hiring off -duty officers. Other alternatives for off-street parking in a two -block area has been discussed by the church, but their proposal, while expensive, is well designed. The congregation has a commitment to downtown and wants to stay in its location, so why not let them develop the subject property as they want. The only alterative for the proposed lot is to leave it vacant as it is, but they have problems such as deserted vehicles parked on the lot. Henry presented an overview of the parking lot's site plan, which exceeds landscape requirements. She referenced an earlier meeting in the Mayor's office when church members met with staff and the property owner of Answerphone. She emphasized that the church will adapt its plans to whatever is needed or wanted. Due to work responsibilities, David Hale, property owner of 623 Rock, stated that he is very involved with downtown and the role that churches play in the area. He stated that he is opposed to the request and disagrees with the church's statement that they have no parking alternative in order to meet growing needs. He has been encouraged about the number of rehab projects in the neighborhood, most of which have been residential. It is a fragile neighborhood due to its close proximity to downtown and to construct a parking lot on the proposed site would make the area vulnerable to encroachment. He added that perhaps another use would be more appropriate for the site or another area should be considered for parking. The safety issue is not a justification for a parking lot and 35 spaces does not serve the needs of a growing congregation. He stated that a parking lot across the street from his home would devalue his property, the area's and is not a good solution for the neighborhood. Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 6 Henry responded to Hale's comments. She said the grope was ' parking lot is the best use for the Property; rt]' a gift and that a nothing is available. She contested his state statement that the area ooked at other property but The architect presented the site plan and detailed is primarily residential. Particular aspects: the single entry, fence height, construction materials, etc. Discussion focused on how the materials and design affect safety and the perception of safety by design and safety, that the parking lot would not be used by older members but by its YounYoun Henry stated On -street parking is a problem for the congregation and some have members. Marratt stated that the church would be better served ve left because of it. neighbors to formulate a consensus as to the use the subject r churches have helped downtown maintain • Y Participated with the compromise could be worked out the residents. it would a he+pful rf a Greer asked whether the applicant had other representatives to application request; there were none. The floor was opened then t Ray Bolinger, property owner at 699 Rock statedspeak in favor of the and wanted it to remain that way; he did add that so 0 opposition. that he liked the subject lot vacant Jean Ann Phillips, of the same address, stated that shehasseverallot is not maintained. questions about the request: the distance from the church to the subject concerns and would use the lot when not used by the church; being a good neighbor; r; grope used as overflow for the church at times when the area and �; why the residential area and character, though mostlyg or; the lot being street are normally quiet; abandoned car on the Ivi; the lot is used as an oer arreaehntsnehe has not seen an by saying that she doesn't want a parking lot across the street neighbors. She concluded t from her home they own the property and ought to be able to use it as the want. ft I. She stated that Henry was given the opportunity to respond to the above as a Y nt. Katherine Matthews, property owner of the apartments on the she was has been an owner since 1983 and has never been approached subject block, stated that as to their intentions or in an effort to tirv❑rlc with roe PPraached by the church use of a parking lot and asked whether they had looked at other She is ❑ discussion about area Off-street parking and other alterna • Opposed r to the was not the task of the I_RHpC to find alternatives propertres. There was whether the parking lot at this location� for the tapplicant,rbut to de � that it +s an appropriate use in the historic district. Michael Preble, president of the MacArthur Park Neighborhoo he had submitted a letter to the I,RHpC against the a Ji d Association, stated that his letter for the various reasons. He stated that there are ben request and referenced lot; that 35 spaces can be found elsewhere; that the intersecter choices for a parking n at 6th and Cumberland Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 7 has all four corners for surface parking; and that it is necessary to balance the historic district needs with institutions' needs. Henry made a rebuttal by stating that she had not received a copy of Preble's letter before the meeting. She also mentioned that the Arkansas Arts Center had applied to the LRHDC for a parking lot recently and it was approved (NOTE: parking was a part of the AAC's May 1998 request for expansion). Mike Helms, owner of 620 Rock, stated that a parking lot would not improve his property value. He is not impressed with how the subject vacant lot has been maintained as there is often trash and is not mowed. Asked whether he would have bought his property (office & apartments) if there was a parking lot on the proposed lot, he replied that he would not and that his tenants do not want it used as a parking lot. In terms of alternatives for the subject property, Henry stated that the lot was a gift and they will not sell it even though that is not part of the deed. The church has to have the lot as parking. Larry Gimnich, property owner of 624 Rock, stated he moved into the area with his family and would like to see the area remain residential. He is opposed to the parking lot and asked where it would end if, in the future, more church parking is needed. He was asked if his decision to buy his property would have been impacted if the subject property were a parking lot -- yes. He added that the involved parties need to sit down as neighbors and discuss it informally. The balance of land uses (commercial, institutional, residential and parking) needs to be considered for the area. Henry was given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal and stated that the reason the church wants to construct the parking lot is to bring more families into the church. Families don't want to walk from the parking garage on Scott to the church. She reemphasized that there tire no adequate choices for a parking lot in another location. Greer asked whether anyone else wanted to speak for or against the request. As there were none, Henry clarified the issue of marking the exhibits, submitting the required notices, etc. There was a call for a motion. Gardner asked about the maintenance of the lot in its present condition as a vacant lot as well as with its proposed use as a parking lot. Henry stated the maintenance of the lot is by a volunteer group; she also stated that a sprinkler system would be installed. Gardner commented that with the emphasis on church growth that the 35 parking spaces would not satisfy the church's growing needs. Henry stated that most people do not want to walk great distance to the church's front door. Gardner asked whether, if the request for a parking lot was approved, there were plans to rent the spaces out as Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 Minutes, Page 8 done with their other two parking lots; Henry stated that she did not know whether the subject property would ever be rented out. Greer stated that the LRHDC may approve the application, approve with conditions or deny the application (Note: the applicant had verbally amended the request to include three conditions). Gardener made a motion that the application be approved with the three amendments: include an irrigation system, revise the surfacing materials and the accommodation of green Space for the trees on the north. As there was no second, the motion failed. Marratt made a motion that the application be denied and Gordon seconded the motion, adding that surface parking lots are detrimental to our downtown. The vote was unanimous to deny the application. The LRHDC adjourned at 8:00 p.m.