HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1993-005 The Second Matter On Agenda 12/02/1993ITEM # 2 DECEMBER 2,1993
Chairman Bush: The second matter on agenda is an application by Mrs. Evelyn Duffy -
Bill Hylton, agent for 815 Rock.
Chairman Bush: The request is for demolition of 815 Rock Street. Is there anyone
present here today to speak in support of this application?
Mr. Hylton: Yes, sir. I'm here along with Mrs. Patton and Mrs. Duffy who are owners
of the property and, as a point of order, I would like to ask if I could have a few minutes
to respond when the comments are gonna be made against the petition.
Chairman Bush: I don't anticipate that being a problem and we hope we can go ahead.
Please proceed.
Mr. Hylton: Mr. Chairman, we have a problem here and how to deal with this starting
off. What we have is a structure that is deteriorated a three years ago to the point that the
City inspectors declared it unsafe. It is a dangerous structure. It is in many aspects an
attractive nuisance which would make a liability for anyone injured on the property. It
uninsurable of course. So, we got a situation where the City on one hand; one agency of
the City has said you got an unsafe structure here. Another agency of the City has said
sorry you can't do anything with it, except fix it. Fixing it is not economically a
possibility. It is just not possible. It is easy, very easy for anyone to say that this piece
of history ought to be preserved. It is very easy to say that, and maintain that, when it's
on the other fellow's nickel. But when it is your own quarter of a million of dollars tied
up, it is a different proposition altogether. And what these two ladies are facing. I would
like to make several or a couple of other comments in anticipation of what I think the
board might hear since I have heard it off and on ... in the few weeks that we've been
dealing with this. What is the concept of demolition by negligence?
Mr. Hylton: Whatever you might can say about that. It is irrelevant to this petition.
This court or commission's might need the authority to do something about that. But it
does not have that the authority at present. And to even discuss it in the context if this
district is objectionable. Mr. and Mrs. Duffy bought this property before this
commission came into being. They bought two other pieces of property contiguous to it.
But those two properties have been saved. I have heard comments that they were not
saved in the ways that some people would not have liked for it to be saved. But again,
they were saved before this commission came into being. Mrs. Duffy has told me that
she does not oppose this commission's purpose, that she values what it has done for the
neighborhood. I'm sure had these renovations been made after this commission came
into existence, there would have been a great deal of cooperation and renovation of these
two structures.
These two houses were bought for investment purposes. So was 815 Rock Street. Mr.
and Mrs. Duffy did not buy it to watch it rot. In fact it is ... and I guess most of us know
not every investment is successful. Sometimes you have to take your losses, cut your
losses and get out. And that's what they're trying to do with 815 Rock Street.
The other thing that I have heard is what do you plan to do with the property in the
future. And categorically, there are plans but to level the ground and plant grass. I will
give whatever there is left of my nine minutes ... to speak in response.
Commissioner Heinbockel: I have a couple questions. Has there been any effort to sell
the property?
Mr. Hylton: It was listed for how long?
Mrs Duffy: With Central Realty for 9 months. It was with McKay Realty for 6 months
and two other small agencies.
Commissioner Heinbockel: What price?
Mrs Duffy: For $20,000 to 25,000
Commissioner Heinbockel: How long has it been vacant?
Mrs Duffy: Oh ... 14 or..., since we have owned it.
Commissioner Heinbockel: So, its been sitting vacant ever since you owned it. Is there
any reason that you never did board it up or fix the roof to prevent it from deteriorating?
Mrs Duffy: We did do some work on the roof to prevent the roof from deteriorating.
....and we did some work underneath it to help it support. They also patched up some
flooring that was going bad and replaced some flooring. We also had to do some work
speaking of the roof on the rafters.
Commissioner Heinbockel: I have looked at the building from the outside, but
obviously I haven't been in it. What is the current status of it structurally?
Mrs Duffy: The first floor is giving away in the kitchen area. As for the up and back, I
don't know, I haven't been in it for several years.
Mr. Hylton: She got some pictures taken of the building.
Mrs Duffy: These are a couple of years old and it has deteriorated since then.
Commissioner Heinbockel: Have you had anyone to look at it? To give you any?
Mr. Hylton: There was an estimate made on it for repairs 3 years ago. It was a little
over $200,000.
Mrs Duffy: Brownlee Construction.
2
Chairman Bush: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the
application that has not spoken so far.
Mr. Hylton: Let me remind the board that the city inspectors, about the time that those
pictures were taken, condemned it as unsafe.
Chairman Bush: Do you recall how long? When was it we last addressed this same
application?
Molly Satterfield: About two years.
Chairman Bush: The date?
Molly Satterfield: August 1990.
Commissioner Menyhart: I'm unclear as to why we have allowed this building for so
many years to fall into such disrepair.
Mrs Duffy: Economics. Strictly financial. There's just been no way to take care of it.
It is a big building.
Commissioner Menyhart: I understand there has been alot of attempts to purchase it
but the asking price was just too high.
Mrs Duffy: The asking price was very reasonable.
Mr. Hylton: I heard such talk myself and it turns out that a ... builder came by —to the
Duffy's house one day. There was some general talk about some possible prices, but
there was no offer or acceptance.
Mr. Hylton: Mrs. Duffy, listed the property at a given price, as everybody does
when they list property with a realtor. She was open to offers and acceptances but none
was made.
Mr. Hylton: One, I think you'll see, one actual offer was $5,000.
Mrs Duffy: About $5,000.
Commissioner Menyhart: Did you ever have it appraised by an appraiser?
Mrs Duffy: No, we didn't have it appraised.
Commissioner Menyhart: I was wondering what you based your sales price on.
Mrs Duffy: Simply on what the general market was at the time.
Commissioner Heinbockel: How much will it cost you to demolish the building.
3
Mrs Duffy: Around $4,000 to $6,000.
Commissioner Menyhart: Are you saying that there is no one who would pay $4,000
to $6,000 to buy the house.
Mrs Duffy: Oh, I think someone would pay $4,000 to $6,000 to buy it from me should I
sell it at that price.
Commissioner Menyhart: No, but if you're going to spend $4,000 to $6,000 to
demolish it, that's out go, why not get $4,000 to $6,000 and eliminate the problem.
Mrs Duffy: It ... the property to have the yard space. Its what I'm looking forward to.
And it certainly takes an eyesore away from the neighborhood. There are a lot of people
around there who object to that....
Chairman Bush: What does
Mrs Duffy: I'm not sure, I would have to look up the date.
: What stop
Chairman Bush: Okay. Let's come to order. Are there people who have any more
questions? Do we have any one present that is to speak against the application?
the
Chairman Bush: We do have the QQA's letter. Dated November 23rd. November 23,
the Quapaw Quarters Association presented a letter. Of course, the Quapaw Quarter
Association addressed the same issue in 1990. I believe. Right.
Right
Did you have a chance to see that there?
Dr. Don Cook: No, sir.
Chairman Bush: Mr. Cook, did you not ... if you represented the Quapaw Quarter in the
last matter, would read into the record the recommendation of the Quapaw Quarter
Association.
Dr. Cook: The Quapaw Quarter Association at the people residence now does suggest
that the property be put on the market at fair and reasonable value. One other option that
she might have is to donate the property. It may give a possible tax break. The main
concern for the district is to try to save the property.
Mr. Hylton: I'm sorry what was the last comment.
4
Dr. Cook: Try to save the property.
Chairman Bush: Is there anyone else present who has any statement or comment they'd
like to make regarding the speaking against the application?
Commissioner Heinbockel: I have one comment and I don't know if other
commissioners are aware of it. This structure is a twin to the building next to it.
Chairman Bush: Why was it a twin at one time?
Commissioner Heinbockel: Well, there have been things that are changed on it. But
generally, it has the same frustration and the same roof -line on it.
Chairman Bush: Do we have anything from the ... Historic Preservation Program
regarding this?
Ken Storey: Yes, sir. The same letter that we presented with from the Cook Jeep Eagle
parking lot. We also in a section of that same letter, we also have reviewed the Duffy
house application. Of course, the copy of that letter was also the same letter was sent to
the official of in advance of this meeting. However, knowing and having been at the
meeting three years ago, where this first -application was submitted, knowing that the
application was declined at that point. And three years have elapsed in the mean time the
office felt that the assessment letter be reinstated the advanced state of deterioration
demolition is the only recourse. Still, we cannot promote the demolition of historic
structures. The results are still the same.
The one thing I would like to address. I'm very sensitive to the applicant's concern
about —as expressed here earlier this evening about the lack of authority of this
commission to address demolition by neglect. I think it probably -is appropriate that that
not be addressed in the course of this application. However, I know that our office feels
very strongly, that as a general matter, that this commission be sole power to prevent
demolition by neglect, as a general matter of possibly of this application. I would
possibly split the record, if nothing else, that we would like to work with the commission
to try to develop that.
But with respect this application,...that again we said that any salvageable material from
the house be donated to interested people to re -use and that once cleared, the lots should
be seeded or sodded with lawn until all of these questions are attacked.
That's our position.
Chairman Bush: Of course, there was a letter from William W. Hylton regarding the
request for the donation and...... Do you'll have a copy of that?
Ken Storey: I'm not certain that we did. We may have a copy of that on hand.
: Let it be second.
No, it's right here. You have a copy of it.
Chairman Bush: Is there anyone else that would care to address the commission
regarding the..., before we go into discussion regarding the application.
. No
Commissioner Heinbockel: I would like to make a comment.
Chairman Bush: Okay discussion is open.
Commissioner Heinbockel: Again, I refer back to our bible here which is our "Design
Review Guidelines" on demolition, page 27. And I don't think that this application meets
our review guidelines.
Chairman Bush: In case Mr. Hylton is not familiar with the "Design Review
Guidelines" regarding demolition, would you read them aloud please.
Commissioner Heinbockel: Alright. No. 8 Demolition, Section A:
"The demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be
avoided."
(Section) B:
" demolition of a building that contributes to historic or architectural integrity of
the MacArthur Park Historic District should not occur unless:
1. Public safety and welfare require the removal of the building and
structure.
2. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven and accepted by
the Little Rock Historic District Commission.
3. Rehabilitation is impossible due to severe structural instability or
inreputable deterioration of the building."
(Section) C:
"Demolition of the pre-1945 secondary buildings, garages, etc. may be
appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more
replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and
structural members.
2
Mr. Hylton: I would like to respond to that, Mr. Chairman if I may. Obviously, the
very first criteria there you mention say the City ... I can only ... How to begin, the
City has condemned this building as unsafe. And, it is an attractive nuisance for
children in the neighborhood and it needs to go as a matter of safety. The criteria
you also mentioned, there is a hardship. That is also in the statutory provisions. 1
don't know about that. The statute says that even if inappropriate, it must be
approved if it presents an undo hardship. That is unquestionably what we are
looking at here. There is no economically feasible way to take care of this
property. I'm not sure of your point about the twin. But I will make a point
about the twin. If this is an historic structure, then it is no more historic than its
twin. It has been preserved and will be preserved. It is the primary residence of
both of these ladies. .....residence and will be preserved.
Chairman Bush: Is there any indication that the building, that absolutely nothing can be
done?
Jay Core: I live on Rock Street. I live at 1 lth and Rock. I think probably I was the first
guy in this room who had lived downtown. Has anybody lived downtown any longer
than me?
Molly Satterfield: Identify yourself, please.
Jay Core: I'm Jay Core, sorry. I knew Mr. Duffy well, very well. I own the property at
9th and Commerce.
: I knew Mr. Duffy well. The point that we are sitting here today has
been destined to for 10 years. I could have told you that you'd be sitting here today if the
house were still here. 15 years ago the house is just ... nobody wanted to redo the house
when it was economically feasible. If we tear that one down, we need to go tear down
Felton Lamb's house, across the street from me. You need to tear one down behind the
cleaners. I just moved down Rock Street. There are three structures when this house
goes, they are going to fall 1,2, 3 one after the other. This is a very regal old lady. It is
worth saving. And it can be saved. Look on Broadway Street. Charles Bray just got
through doing two houses. One about 1 1/2 years ago and we're doing one now that was
in worse shape when we started than this house was two weeks ago.
An if it is economically feasible for Charles to redo them, I know it is economically
feasible to redo this property. Credentials. I've done 9.
Mr. Hylton: Can you put up the money to do it?
Jay Core: That's not what I said! What I said was it is feasible for the property to be
redone in my opinion. I have re -done 9 pieces of property downtown.
W. Hylton: You have made a bold assertion that 15 years ago this was economically
feasible to reconstruct that. On what do you base that?
7
Jay Core: I've been in the house a half dozen times.
Mr. Hylton: So.
Chairman Bush: Well, we are not going to have a personal debate. One of the
problems, since we are open for discussion at this point, I have is that what is
economically feasible this week, this month, this year may or may not be economically
feasible next week, next month, next year or five years. But demolition is forever.
Mr. Hylton: Yes, sir. In that context let me ask this. Do your procedures allow you not
to postpone a demolition to seek ways to save a building? Did you do that 3 years ago?
Were you here 3 years ago?
Jay Core: No, sir I was not.
Mr. Hylton: Did you hear about it?
Jay Core: Yes sir, I did.
Mr. Hylton: Did you propose that somebody try to save the building.
Jay Core: I heard about this, I was 6,000 miles away.
Chairman Bush: There have been 3 or 4 different types of proposals. At least one was
the possibility of as I understand it, about donating to that ..... to the Greater Little Rock
Revolving Fund.
Mr. Hylton: A person should not even be asked to donate their property.
Chairman Bush: That's fine. I was merely making the list. That's one alternative. The
other is to sell. Another is to sell it. Yet a third is to board it up. And just hold it where
it is, so that it doesn't deteriorate any further. Such that in a year, in six months,
somebody else may be in a position or may want to restore the building and would at
least have an option to do so. Yet a fourth is to do it himself, if you can't economically
that possibility, you say that's out. Then that's not an option. But, there are numbers of
options. All of which are precluded by demolition and destruction of the building,
because that is forever. All options cease once the building is torn down. As long as the
building is standing there, there is at least, you know, hope springs eternal. That is true
with everyone, hope springs eternal.
Mr. Hylton: Yes sir, I agree but what is different this time than three years ago? The
hope this time that wasn't available then?
Chairman Bush: What I'm pointing out is that is the hope is no less now than it was
then.
Commissioner Heinbockel: I think Mrs. Duffy acknowledged just a minute ago that she
did at least have one offer although she thought it was too low. But if the offer was
$5,000 and you're going to spend $4,000 to 6,000 to tear it down. I'm not sure that I
understand where the economics comes in here because you are going spend more than
you'd have to tear it down. You are going to spend more than you would have now.
Mrs. Patton: The land will add about $20,000 to our property.
Commissioner Heinbockel: But basically, you really want to tear it down so you'll have
more yard.
Mrs. Patton: Well?
Chairman Bush: Did you guys have some figures —so I'm wondering how that comes
about.... I don't understand why that would be.
Mrs. Patton: The amount of land under that building in the Downtown District....
Chairman Bush: It is worth less now? It's worth less now because the building stands
on it than it would be if it wasn't there?
Mrs. Patton: Well, what is someone gonna do with it that is going to be worth
$200,000. The building is not that big.
Commissioner Menyhart: You are getting into an area, you're presuming,
Mrs. Patton: I'm going by these figures
Commissioner Menyhart: I can't help believe if you get the property appraised and put
it on sale for the fair market appraisal that it wouldn't sell. And, I think the hope has
been that Mrs. Duffy would do that all these years.
Mr. Hylton: She did do that.... for years and years as I understand it. And there is
nothing in any law anywhere that requires a person to sell their property and if they want
to keep it and use and they .... that is always their option.
Commissioner Heinbockel: But obviously, we can't require her to sell it. We're
simply... We can require her not to tear it down. And according to our guidelines, we
are not to allow a demolition if rehabilitation is possible and I cannot .... it's not been
shown to me that is the case here.
E
Chairman Bush: Also, another problem that was articulated by somebody (Mr. Core).
As soon as this building goes ... we have to think of the entire district and focus on what is
appropriate for the district, as well as, each individual case and if you would allow to
turn down or allow any demolition in this case, then what's to stop the next one. And
what should you do about .... the domino effect? Of course, I know that the domino effect
is not anything that's....
Mr. Hylton: What is to stop someone from getting hurt in this building and suing
Mrs. Duffy. In other words to stop Mrs. Duffy from suing the City for indemnity.
Chairman Bush: It should be .... nothing that I could think of. Well, if it were a perfect
world, we would be in a position to deal with minimum maintenance standards in the
historic district where we don't have that. So all we can do is just not debate these
philosophically issues at this point, and deal with the things before us .... okay .... which is
your application. Do we have any pros or cons dealing with this that we did not address.
Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Roddey: I would say that
Hamp Roy requested the commission to attend our
I live across from Kramer School and in terms of
a safety hazard and eyesore to the neighborhood than any than any other criteria that you
want to judge these buildings by. That certainly exceeded the problems with Mrs.
Duffy's property. I hadn't said that had I notice the issue at that time was.
I felt I had no conflict and still voted to deny the petition of the demolition. And I think
that was her duty . And I think that we had all the
obligation to people of that district and be consistent in what we do. And I think that if
we want to keep an eye .... the demolition would . The
school, I don't think Mrs. Duffy's situation is any different that we classify or make an
exception of hers.
Chairman Bush: Do we have a motion here?
: I move that we deny the application to demolish this 815 Rock Street. I
think that it's been well said that this commission will not vote to demolish a building
unless it absolute last ... resort. I think that there are many times over
buildings in that state of repair can be purchased and rehabilitated and I'm not convinced
that it's that great of hardship and that great of public safety problem and it can't be
repaired. And that's what I base my motion on.
Chairman Bush: Do we have a second?
: Second
The motion having been made and seconded. Are there any questions?
If not, we'll vote. Those in favor of the motion to deny the application signify by saying
aye at this time.
10
All members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission: Aye.
Chairman Bush: Those opposed please indicate by saying no.
(Silence)
Chairman Bush: Motion carries.
11