Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1998-020 Memo From Thomas M. Carpenter To Mayor Dailey And Members Of The Board Of Directors 04/23/2001OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Little Rock, Arkansas MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board of Directors - - FROM: Thomas M. Carpente City Attorney AR 2 3 2 0! Re: Request of Little Rock Historic District Commission to seek injunctive relief to enforce Certificate of Appropriateness DATE: 20 April 2001 (2:23 PM) At the 5 April 2001 meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission ("the Commission"), a motion was made to bring a civil enforcement action against Ms. Betty Deislinger to require compliance with the Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") she received for her home at 1000 South Rock Street. While there were several areas of noncompliance, the Commission wishes to pursue Ms. Deislinger's refusal to install appropriate materials for windows at the front of her house.' Despite repeated attempts to get Ms. Deislinger, or her attorney, to discuss this issue, she has refused to do so. On February 23, 2001, her attorney did send a letter stating her intent to nurture the bushes planted around the air conditioning unit so it would eventually be shielded from public view. Ms. Deislinger operates a catering business from her home at 1000 South Rock Street.' On 15 August 1998 she applied for a COA from the Commission to make certain external alterations to the home located at that address. One request was "to replace the aluminum `picture window' on the east side of the building with two floor to ceiling windows such as were in the original house.i' On 3 September 1998 the COA application was considered for the first time by the Commission.' Specifically discussed as part of the presentation was the replacement of windows on Ms. Deislinger gained some national notoriety with her claim that the requirement she remove burglar bars from her windows would subject her to criminal victimization. Despite the fact that when she agreed to remove these bars as a part of the Certificate of Appropriateness, and never once asserted any safety concerns, Ms. Deislinger simply refused to comply with the condition. The Commission does not wish to pursue injunctive relief on this point and will permit Ms. Deislinger to keep the burglar bars. ' The information I have is that Ms. Deislinger needs to obtain a Special Use Permit to conduct this business there, but has failed to do so. ' See Exhibit 1 to this memorandum. This language is located in the fifth paragraph from the end of the memorandum. 4 Commission members present were Chair John Greer, Vice -Chair Howard H. Gordon, Judy Gardner and Mark Zoeller. Commissioner Charles Marratt was present, but he recused from consideration of this matter because of his firm's involvement in the sale. Staff present were Assistant City Manager Bruce Moore, Deputy City Attorney Anthony W. Black, Commission staff member V. Anne Guthrie, and Code Enforcement Officer Rick Purifoy. the north and east elevations from aluminum windows to those more appropriate for a house built in 1876. The minutes of this meeting specifically note that the new windows would copy the studio home located at 1011 Scott Street.' Evidence of noncompliance with the COA did not come before the Commission until 29 November 1999. At that time, a list of the various problems with Ms. Deislinger's windows was addressed by staff and Ms. Deislinger. On the question of whether it was appropriate to use vinyl windows in an historic district, Ms. Deislinger commented that it had never occurred to her to discuss the material with the Commission or with staff. The matter was deferred until the windows could be reviewed in person to see what response would be the most appropriate. This second discussion occurred during the Commission meeting held on 6 January 2000. Although the windows actually installed at the front of the house did not comply with the COA reference to floor to ceiling windows, the chair of the Commission — John Greer — commented that the size of the windows was in proportion to the home and seemed acceptable. However, the materials used for the windows, particularly the vinyl materials as snap -on mutins used to make one piece of glass look like different window panes, distorted the structure and were quite apparently inconsistent with the historic features of the structure. Further, the Commission's design guidelines noted that the replacement of windows on an historic structure should be consistent with the original materials used for the structure. This was the first meeting at which the use of security bars was mentioned. The Commission guidelines state that security bars should not be located on primary facades, or on windows visible from the street. This meeting also noted noncompliance with standards as to the placement of mechanical equipment such as the air conditioning unit. The Commission approved a motion which gave Ms. Deislinger six months to: Replace the front porch vinyl windows with windows of materials listed in the original COA (wood sash windows) and, which retained the existing dimensions in terms of shape, size and proportion; 2. Screen or fence the air conditioning unit on the north side of the house with the additional requirement that the screening method be approved by the administrative staff prior to its installation; Remove the security bars from windows on primary faces, or which are clearly visible from the street. The requirements in this motion, which passed unanimously, were ignored by Ms. Deislinger. Although she eventually planted bushes around the air conditioning unit, this action was taken without prior administrative approval. As to the replacement of the front window, or the removal of the security bars, Ms. Deislinger has steadfastly refused even to meet with the City to discuss the matter. More to the point, this amendment to the COA was subject to challenge by Ms. Deislinger in the Pulaski Chancery Court, but she refused to take any action to seek judicial relief. Instead, she just ignored the requirements of the COA, the amended requirements, and the various contacts from City staff to ask that she come into compliance. As a result, the Commission initially sought a criminal enforcement against Ms. Deislinger, but this office elected to enter a nolle prosequi to the ' See Exhibit No. 2 to this memorandum. Memorandum re: ir{junction action request from Little Rock Historic District Commission 1000 South Rock Street (Deislinger): Page 2 of 4 criminal charges with the hopes that some negotiated agreement could be reached. In the meantime, the Commission considered a review of its architectural standards to determine if some update was appropriate. An article in the Arkansas Democrat -Gazette on Novemebr 4, 2000, noted the City's decision to dismiss the criminal charges. It noted that Ms. Deislinger needed to file an amended COA application to address certain issues, and attributes to her an agreement to do so.' However, neither she nor her attorney have complied. When repeated efforts to contact Mr. Jerry Larkowski — Ms. Deislinger's attorney — by telephone were unsuccessful, this office wrote Mr. Larkowski on 19 December 2000 to ask about a meeting to discuss Ms. Deislinger's COA. There was no immediate response. On 23 February 2001 Mr. Larkowski replied to the City: I have spoken with Ms. Deislinger about your concerns. Her position is she has been granted a Certificate of Appropriateness, and she has no current plans to change her windows as requested. She does intend to nurture the bushes to grow and eventually cover the air conditioning unit. Let me know if you intend to take any further action on this file, or we will close ours and move forward. Based upon this recalcitrance, the Commission took the action it did to seek enforcement in chancery court of the COA. Specifically, the City wishes to address the vinyl exterior window at this location. Since even Ms. Deislinger's position is that she has been granted a COA, and has not appealed any of its provisions, the issue is simply whether she should comply with a legitimate finding of a City Commission, or be allowed simply to ignore the situation. Since the earlier publicity in this case focused upon the security bar issue, and the Commission is not seeking compliance with that particular provision, the real question is whether the City wishes to protect the historic nature of this district, or to permit individuals falsely to obtain COAs and then not comply with the provisions. Because of the prior publicity in this matter, it seems only appropriate that the Board decide whether to authorize this office to proceed with the injunction action. If permission is granted, the City will establish that the historic district was properly created and has established guidelines; that Ms. Deislinger applied for a COA to make certain improvements on her home; that among these were the placement of a certain kind of window at the front of the home; that she has refused to do so despite repeated requests; and, that the Court should issue a mandatory injunction to ask that she come into compliance with the COA she accepted in 1998. At the end of this memorandum, I have prepared boxes for you to check that you agree with the Commission and wish to move forward with this injunction action, or that you disagree and do ° Linda S. Caillouet, LR moves to dismiss charges over burglar bars, ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE, November 4, 2000 at 10A. ... Deislinger isn't off the hook yet. Her home still doesn't comply with commission guidelines, and if those rules aren't changed, she will need to file for an amended Certificate of Appropriateness to avoid future legal entanglements. Deislinger said Friday that he would be willing to do that. Memorandum re: injunction action request from Little Rock Historic District Commission 1000 South Rock Street (Deislinger): Page 3 of 4 not wish to file this action. If you would prefer to contact me by email or phone with this information, I have also included the appropriate contact information. After you have considered the information above, please let me know if this office has the authority to proceed with this matter. TMC: ct CC. Cy Carney, City Manager Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager Chair and Members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission V. Anne Guthrie ❑ I CONSENT TO FILING SUIT and agree that the City should proceed with an injunction action as recommended by the Little Rock Historic District Commission. ❑ I DO NOT CONSENT TO FILING SUIT and do not want the City to pursue an injunction action as recommended by the Little Rock Historic District Commission. Name of Director Date: Please select your view on how to proceed, and return or fax this to me. The fax number is: (501) 371-4675. OR, if you wish, please email me with your response: tc enter 'ttlerock.state.ar.us OR, I can be reached this weekend (after noon on Sunday) at: (H) (501) 219-0746 (0) (501) 371-6875 (P) (501) 914-0232 (M) (501) 681-9518 Memorandum re: injunction action request from Little Rock Historic District Commission 1000 South Rock Street (Deislinger): Page 4 of 4 '�' i. 'iLITTT,'E ROCK HISTORIC =.DISTRICT �bit "1" " APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Application Date: — cl Date of Public Hearing: 3 day of e � 1998 at -5'-P.M. Address of Property: Description of Property: Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax): Owner's Representative: --:�f 14N� lam■ v\ PA IN ' _ II Project Description (additional pages may be added): 6.,, S r 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: j Sr d O 8. Category of Work: I II `� III IV ,� �43�-c�'l �G 9. Notification Requirements: Yes properties lain 51) feet) No 10. Signature of Owner or Representative: �� Historic District Commission Action (to be completed b staff): Penzeed ,,— Deferred _ Approved Approved with Condi(ions tiI- �-t. J C� E) Staff Signature: - NOTE: Approval by the itt a Historic District Commission does not excuse the applicant, owner or representative from compliance with any other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the City of Little Rock unless expressly stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordinances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or representative. r Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs 615 W. Markham Street, Suite 100 ♦ Little Rock, AR 72201 ♦ Phone: 501-244-5420 ♦ Fax: 501-399-3461 . n PROPOSAL FOR WORK NEEDING TO BE DONE ON PROPERTY AT 1000 ROCK STREET THE ROOF ON THE REAR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUILDING IS COMPLETELY GONE FROM YEARS OF NEGLECT. TWO STEEPLY PITCHED ROOFS COME TOGETHER AND FORM A TORRENT OF WATER WHEN IT RAINS THAT HITS THE SLIGHTLY PITCHED ROOF OVER THE REAR SECTION. THE ORIGINAL ROOF WAS METAL AND IS GONE. I HAVE PUT A ROOF OF HEAVY PALE GRAY METAL IN ITS PLACE. THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE ON THIS SECTION. THE BACK WALL SUPPORTING THE ROOF ON THE REAR IS ROTTEN AND HAS TO COME DOWN. ABOUT ALL THAT IS HOLDING THE WALL UP IS THE PERMASTONE ON THE EXTERIOR WHICH WILL HAVE TO COME OFF IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE WALL. I PROPOSE TO USE BOARD AND BATTEN ON THIS SECTION OF WALL, WHICH IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PERIOD WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE SUPPORTING WALL IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE WOODEN PORTION OF A SMALL PORCH WHICH THE WALL ABUTS. I WILL PUT A ROOF BACK OVER THE SMALL PORCH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ORIGINAL PORCH WAS SCREENED IN AND MOST LIKELY THE REPLACEMENT WILL BE AS WELL. THERE IS A DORMER SITTING WHERE THE TWO ROOFS COME TOGETHER THAT IS COMPLETELY CUT OFF FROM THE ATTIC PROPER AND SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE. THE DORMER IS ROTTEN AND LEAKS WHEN THERE IS RAIN. IF IT HAD ANY FUNCTION, I WOULD ENTERTAIN POSSIBLE REPAIR, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. REMOVAL OF THE DORMER WOULD IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE AND REMOVE THE CAUSE OF A LOT OF DAMAGE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REPLACE THE ALUMINUM "PICTURE WINDOW" ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH TWO FLOOR TO CEILING WINDOWS SUCH AS WERE IN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. THIS WILL REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE EXTRA EXTERIOR DOOR THAT OPENS ON THE PORCH. AT PRESENT THERE ARE TWO FRONT DOORS. THERE IS A VERY LARGE METAL WINDOW ON THE NORTH WALL IN THE DINING ROOM THAT I PROPOSE TO REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH TWO OR THREE WINDOWS LIKE THE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BRING THE FRONT PORCH BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STATE IF POSSIBLE. A RAILING AROUND THE PORCH, PERHAPS A WOODEN FLOOR RATHER THAN THE CONCRETE, AND MORE APPROPRIATE HAND RAILS FOR THE STEPS WOULD HELP. IF IT IS FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE AT SOME FUTURE DATE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE PERMASTONE, SINCE I AM SURE THAT IT WAS NOT IN USE IN THE 1870-S. IN GENERAL IF IT IS POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO RETURN THE HOUSE TO THE ORIGINAL APPEARANCE THERE IS ALSO A REALLY BAD OUTBUILDING IN THE REAR WHICH HAS ONLY THREE WALLS THAT NEEDS TO COME DOWN. ONCE AGAIN, IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE IT AT SOME FUTURE DATE WITH ONE THAT IS FUNCTIONAL AND IN KEEPING WITH THE GENERAL STYLE OF THE HOUSE. `i�SAVUJG 16 o o -:i� a-< Yxa1 vI LI&LIC n4JUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Exhibit "2" 3 SEPTEMBER 1998 LRHDC 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 Anthony Black Guests: Rick Purifoy, Code Enforcement Nine residents of the historic district The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken and as all commissioners were present, there was a quorum. Prior to the agenda business, Mayor Dailey asked to address the LRHDC. He wanted specifically to comment on the Second Baptist Church's Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application, which is the construction of a 35-space parking lot in the 600 block of Cumberland and Rock streets. The Mayor stated that he is interested in the redevelopment of the city's central business district and its downtown neighborhoods. In addressing redevelopment initiatives, the balance that attempts to accommodate downtown rpartners with the iss said that thereneeds s f a neighborhood concern. He stated that instead of denying the application, he hoped that the LRHDC will work to accommodate the parking lot application and make it a palpable for the historic district. There is a way to bring the two sides together and to satisfy the request so that it fits the needs of a growing downtown church and the neighborhood. There may be other approaches to a parking lot (i.e., subterranean with playground on top) in an historic district, but the issue is keeping these institutions downtown so they don't move west, as many have done. He thanked the LRHDC for the opportunity to address them at the public hearing. The minutes from the previous meeting were amended and approved. The first COA application for consideration was: Applicant Betty Deislinger Address: 1000 Rock Street Request: Rehabilitate structure's exterior and interior Prior to the presentation, Charles Marratt recused himself from the discussion of the application, as his company handled the house. The applicant presented the plans to rehabilitate the 1876 structure. A listing of the proposed scope of work included several items: roof repair; wooden siding on the rear; dormer repair in the rear; replacement of aluminum wirdcws on the north and east elevations with more appropriate windows of Little Rock Historic District Commission 3 September 1998 :Minutes. Paee 3 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 thane is no t:r: �e 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 westem-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 comer, 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 LRHDC meeting after the vote. The second application was: o— 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 €ollowing: roof repair; replace rotten front porch decking; remove rotten 'rascia 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 c,nimr ey.