This is a continuation of our earlier post "Save the Zenke house" which chronicles the absurd twists and turns we've experienced in saving our home and two other structures from the "invisible gun" threat of eminent domain created by the construction of the new Guilford County Jail.

CORNER DUPLEX: Landfill bound - the negatives win - unless...

NOPE, we're done here; the demolition date is Monday, October 13, 2014 for the duplex.

SALT, the Student Art League store of the Triad couldn't get non-profit status working with the Greensboro Community Foundation fast enough to suit the City deadline, so, no tenant, no hope of financing
The insurance company went elsewhere, and the couple who wanted - at-the-very-last-minute - to take it apart and move it to their farm in Julian, didn't like the price tag.

What a waste of a good building.

Greensboro doing what Greensboro does best.




AUGUST 10, 2014

PLEASE SEE OUR FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN ON INDIEGOGO, SEARCH: "GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T SLEEP HERE. SO?"
The student art league described is still a viable option, but the process for Dr. Jenkens to form a non-profit is longer than the City has given us before it will tear the building down under a "repair or demolish order" which is September 30.  We need another source of funds than a bank, which is why we created the campaign on Indiegogo.  Any amount will help, it is a "flexible" campaign rather than an "all or nothing" campaign - and please pass this information on to others.
(Nope, let's call this IndieNoGo)

 Everytime we've brainstormed what to put on this lot, this time with the duplex rather than it moved to another lot, we have kept in mind what would benefit "this end" of Washington Street and particularly Blandwood Mansion - how can we get more people to live or work in the area, and how can we get those people to be participants in the arts, rather than the municipal machine? How can we create the synergy to help Blandwood connect to the rest of the downtown, rather than be an island that is driven by on the way to somewhere else?  All these factors would be helped by the renovation of this building and using it for the artists league store.  How can we keep this positive?

THE ZENKE DUPLEX - c. 1910

DEVELOPMENTS as of 5/7/14

Back story:  November 2013

I volunteered to do a program at our home on Washington Street and prefaced it with a blanket statement about the duplex, simply, that it was due to be demolished between November 15th and December 15th.  One of the group came up to me after the lecture, Catherine Drake, said she was an attorney, and that she would love to have an office in our duplex, and might know some other attorneys who would as well.  She also said that her husband, Lawrence Jenkens, head of the Art Department at UNCG might be interested as well, as it seemed to fit an idea he had to form a multi-college arts league store to teach entrepreneurship to art students, a current gap in their education.  They both came by the next day and looked through the duplex and thought it would be suitable for both uses.  

February 2014

Catherine Drake has been reaching out to other attorneys who might want space, and Lawrence has started down the strenuous path of forming a non-profit that would work independently of the area colleges while serving their need to give art students a gallery to set up, run, and display their works.  The project also would benefit museum studies programs.  In December, Dr. Jenkens wrote to the mayor and two council members and several City staff members to request a meeting in January 2014 to discuss the matter, and to request that demolition be delayed at least until after that meeting.

No response.

Over the holidays, Dr. Jenkens contacted potential supporters, one of which is a consultant who is, pro bono, leading the art students through the steps of creating a business plan. Dr. Jenkens met with City staff in January (no Council members showed) and said it would take until the end of the semester (early May) to come up with the business plan.  He hoped also to have more in place to form the non-profit; board members and possibly some operational funding.  Once he reaches non-profit status, then the non-profit can issue a Letter of Intent, which we can then take to potential lenders to get the funds necessary to renovate the duplex.

No response.

Members of the City Council, could, if so moved, direct the staff to slow down the demolition long enough to allow Dr. Jenkens to solidify his plan and present it to the City Council.  

This process includes: 

a) having his students create a business plan which should be done by early May

b) recruiting a board of directors

c) exploring and recruiting funding for its operational expenses

d) forming a non-profit, which at that point, could write a "Letter of Intent" to lease the building.

At that point, we could then go to a lending institution and request funds to renovate the building.

Finding a tenant (or a lot to move it to) has been our unending quest in this tanked economy.  

Council members need to be persuaded to direct staff to delay demolition until Dr. Jenkens can present his plan, less than 90 days away. (Currently, according to a column by Jeri Rowe on February 26, 2014, the City has "lost patience" with us over this project, and certain members have withdrawn support.)  

5/7/14 Dr. Jenkens' students have submitted their business plan for Student Artists League of the Triad (SALT) to various non-profits to seek operating expenses - salaries, rent, utilities for the project.  Still no Letter of Intent on the horizon, so we wait.

8/23/14  Met with Dr. Jenkens and Gordon Skoensen of the Greensboro Community Foundation.  The business plan that was supposed to be submitted by the students in May hasn't materialized yet, so the process to obtain non-profit status OR at least go under the umbrella of the Greensboro Community Foundation.  Disclaimer: As a for-profit property owner, we were NOT approaching the GCF for funds  for renovation, but were seeking verbal/networking support for our efforts, and hoping that GCF could take SALT under its umbrella to fast track it into an entity that could legally sign a letter of intent/lease. This was not forthcoming and even if it had made progress, it was not fast enough to meet the City's extension deadline of September 30th.

Another possibility we had been working with was an insurance company that was interested in leasing the whole building.  While it appealed to our pragmatic side, those involved didn't seem to play well with the other children.  We got as far as sending them a letter of intent to sign, at which point they evaporated.  No calls or emails returned.  Just as well, but we're losing a building, in part, to them.

At the very, very last minute, a couple approached us, both attorneys, with the idea to haul it to a farm they have in Julian, where it would make a nice home.  The numbers for moving and rebuilding were more than they had in mind.

That's it.
What a waste.

Among those contacted were:

Greensboro College

Elon College

Starbucks ("downtown Greensboro is not Starbucks worthy")

Downtown Greensboro Inc. (the building is listed on their real estate page - and obscure lip service)

Builders of Hope (Raleigh non-profit that moves & renovates houses - "too big")

Church World Services (non-profit for new immigrants, doesn't like proximity to jail)

Habitat for Humanity ("We want to build new houses in nice neighborhoods with trees and playgrounds.")

Salvation Army (directed us to Guild County Coalition to End Homelessnes - you can stop at Guilford County)

DeLancy St (Heard it wanted larger digs, but we aren't in Fisher Park and we aren't large enough)

Tenants of buildings to be demolished for Greensboro Performing Arts Center. (nothing)
- various developers and many others...

And we have looked for feasible lots to move the building to - came close on Spring Garden Street, but were stopped by a 1' variance (read more in "back story"re: Ann Roberts)

In none of these instances did these possible solutions "tank" because we were "uncompromising."

BACK STORY:

The 1910 Duplex:
In 2007, after the announcement of the County jail expansion, one of the City planners suggested moving the brick 1910 duplex to College Hill, to a lot owned by Greensboro College.  The president, Craven Williams, came and expressed sincere interest in the building and then went on vacation for the summer of 2008.  We heard nothing from them for months.  They finally resurfaced in January of 2009 and said, "We want to do this."
They wanted it to house coaching staff, so we all started gathering numbers for the move.  We got  killed in the first round, again thanks to Duke Power and the $152,000 bill to take the direct route down Market Street to the lot behind the old YMCA on Rankin Street.  Market Street was a main electrical artery as well as a four lane traffic artery.  In addition, Southern Railroad wanted $22,000 plus meals and lodging to move the signal arms on the tracks crossing Market.  Cable, DOT and telephone pushed utility costs well over  $200,000.

Our house mover, Mike Blake, went back to the drawing board, proposing the rear single story and the front porch be shaved off and the two pieces taken through back streets with less utility cost.  In May 2009 the numbers came back from Duke Power Company, and intstead of a $650,000 project we had a $415,000 project, begining to end, which came within $20,000 of what the City could give and what the College could spend towards the renovation.  Working through PGDF again, we worked with the College Hill Neighborhood Association and got them over minor objections and misinformation.  We got the City funding approved - it was unused bond money allocated to College Hill.  At our last meeting we reworked the numbers and were ecstatic - we had it in our grasp.

Two days later, the first of many articles by Lorraine Ahearn came out exploring the financial difficulties of Greensboro College.  Within a month Craven Williams had retired and we got official word that the duplex project was dead.

Before we got official word that Greensboro College had backed out, but knowing they probably would, I headed down to the City offices to see if there was any more money to be had for the project.  My brother, Chris, half jokingly said, "Why don't you ask them if we're eligible for any of that money?" I thought we had covered that long ago; City funds were available for neighborhood redevelopment only.  Nevertheless, I asked, and was surprised when a couple of days later they said, "Yes."  The money available was not as plentiful since most of it was tied to bonds for College Hill, but there was enough to get the building moved to our lot and start renovations.  As time progressed some of that funding "expired" to the point that there were just enough funds to move the house.  So we were  basically having to renovate a building that was perfectly good before government expansion. Again.  And we were saddled with a second renovation when we were meagerly prepared for the first move and renovation of Mother's house.

While we worked on Mother's house throughout 2010, we also tried to market the duplex for a tenant. The traffic count for a three block radius was between 75,000 and 80,000 per day according to DOT statistics.  Three arteries were within that: Freeman Mill/Edgeworth/Spring Garden, Market/Friendly, and Eugene/Washington.  In addition we were the main pedestrian artery between the colleges and the cool end of Elm Street.  We climbed the contact ladder at Starbucks, only to be told by their real estate agent that downtown Greensboro wasn't Starbucks Worthy.

The duplex is up on steel, having been moved in October of 2009, twelve days before the County broke ground on the new jail.  We have all site, architectural, and engineering plans approved b the City for a commercially rated building.  Prospective tenants look at it and say, "Great location, great traffic, " (then, with eyes gazing up eight stories high) "When is the County going to bulldoze you?" making it near impossible to develop the property for anyone bu the County in this market.  That house could be renovated where it is; everyone involved wanted a more human scaled street scape in front of Blandwood Mansion, but with the current factors again in play at this point, we feel it should be moved out to a neighborhood, a much longer lasting and appropriate solution.

Updates:
March 25, 2011:
The County issues us the "We've changed our mind and want your land back" letter.  We offered to get the old houses out and build an administration building (declined) and next we offered to build a parking deck (haven't heard from them) but their whining for parking seems to be subsiding with the realization that their jail isn't quite the tourist draw for downtown Greensboro that it anticipated.
A parking deck was not what we had in mind to build in front of a National Landmark, but leasing parking to a round-the-clock facility created numbers that would support the construction of a deck as well as the costs associated with moving our mother's home yet again.  The comical aspect to this was that the Preservation Greensboro actually issued a letter to the County objecting to this deck, whose design would be controlled by our family who has made its living creating handsome designs for all sorts of buildings, interiors and applications.  When the jail project was first announced in 2005, and originally planned to face Blandwood Mansion before our land swap with the County, there was not one word of objection by Preservation Greensboro to a County controlled design for an incarceration complex being erected in the same location.

October 2011:
The City, due to pressure from neighbors and at least one downtown booster club, instigates a "Repair or Demolish" order because they consider us "blight" instead of "Murphy's Laws and Then Some."  Said booster club has never offered or uttered one word of support for our situation.  (See February News & Record article: Downtown Greensboro Inc, Shape Up or Else..."
We go back to the original plan - Get These Houses into More Appreciative Neighborhoods! So we started combing the GIS tax map for lots.

February - October 2012
Found one! Randy and Ann Roberts own the old Ireland House property, the house having burned after its lovely restoration by the Roberts.  When all this started rolling in 2007, I asked them if they would be interested in taking it and they responded that they were hoping to build a commercial building on it at some point since it was located on the corner of Friendly Avenue and Spring Street.  So nothing more was said.

In combing the GIS we saw that they also had a smaller lot, three lots north of the Ireland House property.  Would they be willing to take the house at that location? Carl Myatt, architect and mutual friend made the initial call and I made the pitch - and they said yes!

This would have placed it 2 blocks away from the Queen Anne on Cedar Street.  It met with City approval for it fell within their neighborhood redevelopment plans for the area, and the vintage of the duplex was the same as the other houses in the area.  The City's main drive in conserving these neighborhoods was to get "heads in beds" in downtown Greensboro and this fit right in.

Problem: House is 42' wide, the lot is 50' wide.  Greensboro likes a 10' side setback for residential use, or a 5' setback - or build on the lot line - for commercial use. So Ann Roberts needed to apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Hearing #1 for the residential use (this was the viable real estate market at the time, you could rent residential far easier than office/commercial ) and 6' each side - and it was denied.  Here's why:
Ann Roberts and I showed up at the hearing, I, armed with the history of "why we want to do this" and Ann, armed with architects plans for setbak and parking and all the technical things she needed to pass the variance.  A 6' variance.  What could go wrong?
Everything.

We say our bit, then the neighbors say their bit and it was plenty.  Lacking technical objections they went for drama and personal attack, speculating that because it was an old house, it would automatically attract derelict tenants, in short, accusing Mrs. Roberts of being a slum lord when she actually had never rented any property.  In reviewing the transcript they used the term "slum" in relation to the Roberts 11 times.  Their neighbors were website developer PhotoBiz and on the other side of her lot, was a firm full of attorneys, Carruthers and Roth.

The duplex had just stepped into a land war.

Apparently, one neighbor and then the other, 3 and 4 years ago respectively, had tried to purchase the lot from the Roberts at near tax value, which they declined.  One party got so testy about it, saying "you'll be lucky to get tax value, it won't appraise any higher" taunted the Roberts into getting an appraisal for it.  It came in at almost triple the value!  The neighbors got quiet after that.

What the City did not advise us to do before the hearing, they advised after the hearing: "Bring an attorney."

Actually, the City was just as appalled as we were at, not just the outcome, but the demeanor of the attorneys and the derailing of the proceedings into a "wild meeting" according to one City staffer.

The variance request however, gave them the small leverage they needed to prevent the Roberts from developing their property with this project in mind.  The board expressed that since the surrounding buildings were used for commercial, including the large Queen Anne next door owned by PhotoBiz, that they would prefer to see it used for commercial.  They turned down the request for residential.

Mrs. Roberts filed an appeal on the residential decision with the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Simultaneously, she applied for a commercial variance, but went through two continuances waiting for an appointment with, reputedly, one of the best zoning attorneys in town.

She brought the attorney. And the application for commercial was also denied.  One City staffer used the word "brutal" to decribe the hearing. Here's why:  The meeting started at 5:30, and we walked out, exhausted, at 7:40.  Aside from 10 minutes of officiating at the beginning of the meeting, all 2 hours were spent on our case.
We had given the opposition ample time to load for bear.  One of their main points was that the Roberts could not prove that they had exhausted every other means for developing the property; the possibility  had always existed that they could develop an entirely new building within the setback rules and provide the necessary parking.  Most likely it wold have been at a higher cost, but that fact was ignored.  The Roberts had also not had an engineer do a site plan for the duplex, which is something that few people would have spent the money on unless they had PASSED the variance FIRST!

Leaving no stone unturned, they went after her personally, speculating that because the mowing of their properties was inconsistent, and that the Ireland house remained behind chain-link fence, this was an indication that they would not follow through with any project they undertook.  Never mind that they had brought the Ireland House back from the grave and turned it into a great event space for meetings and wedding receptions.  Before it burned, even Carruthers and Roth used it for meetings, one of its ace attorneys blessing the third floor bathroom with a large amount of alcohol-induced vomit that Mrs. Roberts had to clean up - at no extra charge!

Then someone brought up the eaves, which are 2 1/2' deep.  That would produce yet another variance request because eaves cannot be closer than 3' from any property line.  I pointed out that in order to move the duplex, the roof needed to be entirely removed and that it could be built back any depth required. One board memeber was wringing her hands about this fact, and thought she would hate to see the house look clipped or "pinched" on the lot, so she voted down the request, along with all the other board members, essentially sending the house to the landfill.  Again, folks, she'd hate to see the clipped eaves, so let's send it to the landfill instead.  Amazing.

It was unanimous, and no matter what attorney we brought, it was, we felt, a done deal.

The are were two more lot owners that we tried to work with one nearby and one further away; both situations had great advantages but also obstacles that in the end, swayed the owners away from the undertaking.

All summer long we leap-frogged variance meeting with Minimum Housing Standards meeting to request continuances again the "Repair or Demolish" order brought about, not by the City, but by neighbors.  At present, on October 9th, 2012, the committee will not grant any more extensions and will vote to enforce the "Repair or Demolish" order and we will have 90 days to comply.

February 2013
So far we've had 2 extensions on top of that while we try to formulate a solution with various public and private entities, but to no effect.

At the February meeting, I thanked the committee for all their help in trying to keep this house out of the landfill.  Truly, they had given us every break possible within the rules and guidelines of their authority.  They asked why there had been no one from Preservation Greensboro consistently at the meetings to support us.  I couldn't begin to speak for them.

At the March 12th meeting, the committee upheld the inspector and voted to give us the final 90 days to  "repair or demolish" the building.  We are looking into having it taken down by hand with the materials sorted and sold off.  This is the most reasonable course of action since the building is still on steel.  Taking it down by machine puts the steel at risk, something Mike Blake, the mover, doesn't want to see happen.  It will likely be more expensive than mechanical destruction.



June 2013 - Through a contact of Ann Roberts, we have been in tough with the non-profit group, Church World Services, which provides legal, medical and employment help to those immigrating to this country.  They were looking to expand and increase their parking as well.The conversation with them centered around moving the house to the Ireland House property and using it there, but they ran into the City's excuse of "no funds available."  So we offered to let it stay on our site; with a tenant we could then pursue funds, and what money was available would go entirely to renovation, without any moving costs.  Talks stalled out when CWS wanted assurances that the County would make no moves for at least 5 years so they wouldn't have to move - assurances we couldn't speak for.

October 2013
We have been notified by the City that demolition will take place in late November or December.  We have contacted area non-profits to see if they could use the building.  Fisher Parkers put us in touch with Delancy Street, but we were too far away and they would have to double their staff to run a second unit, and the Ireland House property is too close to the ABC store.  Habitat only wants new houses near parks for the kiddies - no downtown property and certainly no interest in partnering with Preservation.

Attending the annual Preservation Greensboro Meeting last February, I sat next to a board member who told me the oft-quoted saying in preservation circles  "Well, you can't save them all."
True enough, but it hardly makes for a great mission statement.

FOR EVEN MORE BACK STORY, SEE: SAVE THE ZENKE HOUSE - (Please keep in mind that the Zenke home, and the Zenke duplex described above, are two separate projects.)

Thanks for reading!