Loading...
HDC_07 09 20121 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 9, 2012, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Loretta Hendrix Chris Vanlandingham BJ Bowen Members Absent: Mark Brown Toni Johnson City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Page Wilson Jason Stepp II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of May 14, 2012 and June 11, 2012 as submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent. Notice requirements were met on the application to be heard tonight. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 2 DATE: June 11, 2012 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1418 Rock Street COA REQUEST: New Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1418 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 8R, Block 49, Original City of City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is currently a vacant lot. The house was removed in 2000 as a result of the 1999 tornado. This application is for a New Infill House with detached garage. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On May 9, 2011, a COA was issued to David Anderson & Allison Vandever for construction of a house (which was never built). On August 5, 1999, a COA was filed for the repair of the roof after the tornado. The COA was not granted due to lack of information. On January 6, 2000, a COA was granted for demolition to Raymond Rogers. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. Location of Project Montage of street view 3 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 63: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish- scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. 4 Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) This new construction of primary and secondary buildings maintains, and does not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. This proposed house blends with adjacent buildings, and is not too imitative of historic styles so that it is distinguished from historic buildings. 1. BUILDING ORIENTATION: The front setback of the proposed house is at the same setback as the other new structures on each side of it and is similar to the historic structures on the block face. Side setbacks are consistent to the historic and new structures on the block face. These are compatible with the district and within zoning parameters. 2. BUILDING MASS AND SCALE: The proposed house appears similar in mass and scale with the single family houses on the block face. This includes both height and width. The width of the front façade is just under 36 feet wide and the height is just under 20 feet. This is the same height as the shotgun house to the north and less than the house to the south. While not typical, the shape and arrangement of the structures are compatible with the surrounding buildings. 3. BUILDING FORM: This house features an internal courtyard and a detached garage in the rear. The front portion of the house (master bedroom suite and entry hall) is reminiscence of a small cottage. The roof pitch is 12/12 and is similar to the two houses to the north. This house utilizes side-gabled roof forms. The detached garage will feature front and rear gables. Front (east) and north facade South façade showing courtyard The entry door is off-centered and surrounded by ganged windows (two in the entry and three in the master bedroom.) The front door is recessed in a small porch area and will be less than three feet above grade. The steps extend past the front façade of the house. Handrails will not be installed. The porch and steps will be constructed of wood. The front third of the house does not feature any windows on the sides of the structure. The lack of windows on the north and south façade is not compatible with the district. Homes in the area feature windows on all sides of the structures, not just in the courtyard areas. A window 5 will need to be installed on both the north and south elevations of the front structure on the eastern half of the wall at least 3’ x 5’ vertical in size. The foundation of the house will be 24” tall at the front and will be plain concrete block. The house will have 8’ ceilings on the main floor. (There is a loft in the rear of the house above the second bedroom.) The windows will be Anderson windows, wood with white vinyl cladding. The windows on the front of the house will be 24x53 inches with 24x17” awning windows below. The door will be an Anderson 36” Glass slab front door with white vinyl cladding. 4. BUILDING MATERIALS: The siding on the house will be Hardie Board 8” smooth lap siding in a horizontal pattern. This will result in a 7 1/4 inch reveal. The corner boards and trim around the windows and doors will be 4 inch Hardie Board trim with a smooth finish. This material is similar in appearance to the materials used historically. The roof will be a metal corrugated roof, like the shotgun house to the north. It will be Galvalume 3/4” corrugated roofing on a 12/12 pitch roof with 18” overhangs. Exterior lighting will be Westinghouse Craftsman nickel finish. One will be placed on each side of the front door and on each side of the garage door. Light fixture shown on page 7. Gutters will be Galvalume half-round. Downspouts will be on each end of the front façade. Two downspouts will be on the north façade at the bottom of the valleys. Addition gutters will be located where they will not be seen from the street. 5. SITE FIXTURES: Fencing will enclose the courtyard and extend south to the property lines from the house and meets with adjacent properties fence. This “pallet fence’ will match the adjacent properties fence. It will be constructed of 1x4’s mounted horizontally. Fence is to be a maximum of 6 feet in height or will be subject to a review by the Board of Adjustment. The location of the fence is slightly less than one-half the way back from the front portion of the house. A concrete walk to the structure from the city sidewalk will be 4 feet wide. The driveway in the rear will be a 12 feet wide gravel drive. Air conditioner condensing units will be placed inside the courtyard and in the backyard. The gas meter is scheduled to be placed on the north façade. A satellite dish is requested to be installed on the rear of the house on the southwest corner roof. The garages is smaller in scale than the primary building; is simple in design and reflects the general character of the primary building; is located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the Proposed Fence 6 alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and is compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Addition of two windows as stated above. Submittal of final window design to Staff. If windows are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. COMMISSION ACTION: June 11, 2012 Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that notices were not sent with a return receipt requested. The requirement for notices to be sent had not been met and the commission could not hear the item until notices had been met. The notices had been sent certified mail, but not return receipt requested. There was a dialogue between Page Wilson the applicant and Brian Minyard about when the error was discovered. Mr. Minyard stated it was discovered this morning. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if it was automatically deferred to the next meeting. Ms. Weldon stated that the motion would need to have a date specific noted in the motion. Mr. Minyard read form the ordinance concerning notices including legal ads and mailing and explained the timeline needed to have a meeting at an earlier date. He continued that they could have a meeting on July 2, but could not guarantee that this room would be available or that all commissioners could be present. Mr. Wilson stated that the thought the commission could change the requirement for notices over the text of the ordinance. Ms. Weldon stated that the commission could not override the ordinance and that the Staff or the commission could not be document that the notices were sent. Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to defer the item till the July meeting for notification issues. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent via roll call vote (Ripley absent). STAFF UPDATE: July 2, 2012 Notices were mailed on June 29, 2012 certified with return receipt requested. No other changes were made in the application. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012 Commissioner Randy Ripley recused from the item and removed himself from the room. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham stated that there were only four commissioners present to vote on the item and that all four would be required to vote to approve the item for to be passed. Page Wilson, the applicant, stated that he wanted to proceed with the item at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation. Chairman Vanlandingham commented that the mass and scale needed to be addressed because the garage building in the rear was taller than the building in the front. Mr. Minyard 7 stated that when viewed from the street, the garage does not appear to be that much taller, if you are able to see the garage at all. Mr. Page Wilson stated that they were willing to add the two windows to the plan as stated in the Staff recommendations. One of the windows would be in the entryway and one would be located in the closet. He continued that he would not like to add the one in the closet. Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that she did not have an issue with no windows on the sides. Commissioner Wiedower asked about a window in the rear of the structure, which was a window in the loft area. Jason Stepp, potential buyer of the property, said that the front half of the great room was a cathedral ceiling. The discussion focused on whether there was room for an attic vents instead of windows on the front structure. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the setback was the same as the other structures. The answer was yes. She continued to ask if there was room for the tree in the plan. Mr. Wilson said that there was room and he would stay with the 15’ setback. Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if he could live with the addition of the two windows in the front. Mr. Wilson said that they could. There was a discussion of changing the direction of the siding in the gables. Mr. Stepp asked about the vent instead of a window. Mr. Wilson said that they could get vents out of cypress, and paint them to match. He then said that they would just stay with the windows. Chairman Vanlandingham made several points, the first of that the windows had been addressed. His second point was that from the front, a person would see two structures with a lower height of the one in the front versus the one in the back. He added that it was atypical that the smaller building would be in the front with the taller building in the back. Mr. Wilson responded that the structure works with the randomness of the houses in the area. Commissioner Wiedower asked what the pitch was on the roofs. Mr. Wilson said it was 12/12. She continued that the taller structure in the rear may not be discernable from the front. Mr. Stepp stated it was 3’-10” taller than the front. He continued that the garage was in between the two. There were no citizens present to speak for or against the application. Mr. Wilson amended his application to add the two windows as recommended in the application to be sized to match with a 24x53 window with a 24x17 awning window below on each side. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application as amended (adding fenestration on north and south gables in front structure) with Staff recommendation of a building permit. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 2 absent (Brown and Johnson) and 1 recusal (Ripley). Commissioner Ripley reentered the hearing after the vote. 8 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: July 9, 2012 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: vicinity of Scott and 21st Streets COA REQUEST: South Main Street Residential Historic District Boundary Increase PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at vicinity of Scott and 21st Streets. The property’s legal description is “Lots 7-12, Block 422 Duvall’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 9 In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 10 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the South Main Street Residential Historic District Boundary Increase. This increase in the boundary was driven by an owner of property in the half block bounded by 20th, Scott and 21st Streets. This increase will add four contributing structures to the district and one vacant lot. It will also recognize additional vacant lots in the district that were previously surveyed. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lace individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012 Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked if the legal notices had been met on the nominations. Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that they had been placed in the legal ad as the COAs are. It was noted that the applicant was not present. When hearing a COA the applicant must be present, but this is not a COA, stated Debra Weldon. Chairman Vanlandingham clarified that this qualifies as part of the public comment section of the nomination. The Commission made a change in the order of the agenda and heard this item later. Mr. Minyard stated that he asked AHPP and they do not attend all of the nominations hearings around the state. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated the she wished to have someone from AHPP present to answer questions. Staff then made a brief presentation to the Commission. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham had a question on the boundary. The boundary was set with the consent of property owners, although there are additional resources to the south. Mr. Minyard stated that he gave all of the information given to him to all of the commissioners. Commissioner Hendrix asked a question on a property at 19th and Main. Mr. Minyard did not know the property owner to whom she was referring. 11 Commissioner Ripley asked what would happen if the Commission did not support the nomination. Commissioner Wiedower wanted context from persons at state or researcher to give credence for passage. She continued that she did not feel qualified to vote on the factual basis of this application. There were no citizens present to speak for or against the application. Commissioner Randy Ripley made a motion to support the nomination with the caveat that representatives of the applications be present at the meeting to speak at future applications. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent. 12 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: July 9, 2012 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: A portion of the area bounded by Capitol, Johnson, 7th and Brown Streets COA REQUEST: Lamar Porter Athletic Filed Additional Documentation and Boundary Increase PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located within a portion of the area bounded by Capitol, Johnson, 7th and Brown Streets. The property’s legal description is “NW NE SE 5-1N-12W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 13 In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 14 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Lamar Porter Athletic Filed Additional Documentation and Boundary Increase. The nomination states: “The purpose of this additional documentation and boundary increase is to update the resource count of the nomination and to increase the boundary so that the entire field falls within the listed boundary. “When Lamar Porter Athletic Field was listed in the national Register on December 6, 1990, the nomination described that, “on the west end of the field, outside the left field fence, is a poured concreter drainage culvert with masonry set fieldstone walls. It is traversed by a masonry arch bridge about two-thirds of the way to Brown Street.” However, the drainage culvert is actually traversed by two identical bridges, one near the northern end of the culvert and one near the southern end. Both bridges consist of concrete arches with fieldstone walls. The updated resource count takes into account the bridge that was omitted in 1990.” The boundary description submitted in 1990 actually cut out about one-third of the field, specifically much of right field. The revised boundary description has been expanded to that the entire field is included in the nominated area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lace individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item to the Commission. He added that there are citizens interested in the restoration/renovation of the property. Commissioner Randy Ripley made a motion to approve the Boundary Increase and Additional Information. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent. There were no citizens present to comment on the item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she wanted AHPP to know that the Commission considered not taking any action because of the lack of a person representing the application was not present. Mr. Minyard stated that he would do so. Commissioner Hendrix asked for more information be given to the commissioners. Debra Weldon read from Chapter 9 of the Federal Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual which allows State SHPO’s to delegate to 15 CLG’s consideration of National Register nominations, but encourages the CLG commission to seek needed expertise through consultation with the SHPO or other qualified persons. She noted that the commission could ask AHPP to send someone with particular expertise to help meet the federal guidelines for review. Chairman Vanlandingham agreed and stated to do that. 16 Statewide responses Original email question: Fellow Arkansas CLG Staff, I have a question to ask all of you. My commission was asking in the last meeting about time limits on approved COA's. Our attorney's opinion is that there is no time limit on execution of a COA. Please share your thoughts on how long your COA’s are valid. Also, can a COA get an extension? Can staff administratively approve the extension? I have received comments from a lot of out-of-state folks, but they do not operate under our state law. Thanks in advance. Comment from Patricia Blick, CLG Coordinator It all depends on your code, if you have an expiration date specifically, or if there is something generic in your city code that states, that board approvals are good for _____ # of days. I’ll put this on the listserve and see what other folks say. In Annapolis, Maryland, we had a 6- month limit, and we could extend it one time administratively then folks had to come back for another hearing. Don’t forget that with home rule now, local jurisdictions have more flexibility in adopting ordinances that they need! Eureka Springs issues COA for one year for any level of review. It can be extended for six months by staff, then the process starts all over again. North Little Rock’s COAs are valid for one year. If there is no change in the scope of the project, we will re-issue. Van Buren - On our COA it states it is effective immediately upon issuance. Work must be completed in 12 months of approval, and you may apply for a 6-month extension. Any work performed outside DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 17 of the scope of the COA renders it null and void. BTW, that extension has to go to the commission for approval. In Conway, we do not specify a time limit within our true locally recognized historic district, the Robinson Historic District. In our Old Conway Historic Overlay District, we specify a 1-year time limit. However, the overlay's time limit has proven to be impractical. I plan to amend our ordinance to allow at least 2 years, if not more in the overlay area. City of Fort Smith Our ordinance says the following: (h) A certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic district commission shall become void unless work pursuant to the certificate of appropriateness is commenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance of the certificate of appropriateness, unless the historic district commission grants an extension to the certificate based on abnormal weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant which have been shown to delay the approved work. Further, staff cannot administratively approve the extension. 18 Nationwide responses Original Question: All, One of our HDC’s asked the following: My commission was asking in the last meeting about time limits on approved COA's. Our attorney's opinion is that there is no time limit on execution of a COA. Will you poll/research the other commissions concerning this? Please share your thoughts on how long your COA’s are valid. Also, can a COA get an extension? Can staff administratively approve the extension? Thank you, Patricia Kalamazoo, Michigan Our COA's are good for 6 months by ordinance. They can be renewed for an additional 6 months as long as there are no changes in the proposed work. Staff can administratively approve any extensions. Wilmington, Delaware is the same as Kalamazoo. Pueblo, Colorado Our commission wonders the same thing. One approach is that it’s unlimited; another idea is that if it’s tied to a building permit it could expire when a building permit expires (180 days here), but that’s difficult since our code is completely silent on when they expire. If the work conforms to the code and they plan to do the exact same project I wouldn’t see why there would be too much worry about it taking some time or going invalid. Manitou Springs, Colorado, Our COA’s (which we call MCAC’s – Material Change of Appearance Certifications) are valid for one year. This is consistent with the expiration of zoning approvals. The reason for expiration is that circumstances and regulations change and you don’t necessarily want someone resurrecting a 10 year old approval when you might have adopted new guidelines, changed the ordinance, or the property went from a noncontributing to a contributing status by virtue of reaching that 50 year mark (or whatever standard exists in your jurisdiction). We don’t have extensions at this time, although we have talked about maybe a 6 month administrative action. 19 City of Kenosha, Wisconsin COA's are valid for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. We have that language incorporated into our ordinance. If it's over 5 years, the applicant would have to apply for a new COA and have the Historic Preservation Commission approve it. Staff is unable to administratively extend it. Montgomery County, MD, COA’s do not expire. There I times I wish they did. City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Ours are good for six months from date of issue and can be renewed by the Board for another six months. Once the related building permit is issued, then the COA is tied to that permit and however long it remains valid. Windsor, Connecticut Our COAs are good for a period of 6 months - that's the period of time that a related building permit would need to be pulled. Applicants can ask for up to a 6-month extension either at the time of their COA hearing or at a subsequent meeting. It is not currently within the staff's purview to approve the extension. We have a fairly small historic district and the commission only meets when COA applications are submitted. We also don't charge a fee for applications or extensions. Norman, Oklahoma We use the same system as Windsor, CT—6 months with one six-month extension—effectively one year. As things stand right now, when an expired COA comes back to the commission for a re-review of the same project we do not charge them a COA application fee, normally $75. Laurel, Maryland Ours expire in a year (if the work has begun, there is no expiration). Extensions, yes. Staff approval, I don't think so. Fort Wayne, IN Our Certificates are generally good for a year and have the issue date and expiration date on the Certificate. If the work hasn’t been completed in a year the Certificate can be re-issued as long as the scope of work hasn’t changed. City of Opelika, Alabama When we issue a COA, the petitioner has 6 months which to begin project and 18 months to complete project. If work has not begun within the 6 months, an extension has to be requested. 20 City of Eustis, Florida My City’s Ordinance specifies that work must commence within one year from the date the COA is issued. “Any certificate of appropriateness which has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this section shall expire 12 months from the date of issuance if the work authorized is not commenced within this period. Further, such certificate shall expire if the work authorized is not completed within three years of the date of issuance, unless otherwise extended by the board.” Indianapolis, Indiana Our COAs are good for one year from the issuance date. Staff can administratively extend a COA up to one more year – as long as the scope of work hasn’t changed. A filing fee of half the original fee is charged for the extension (example: a COA issued with a filing fee of $50 would cost $25 for an extension). The only exception to this is when we issue COAs to resolve violations. Depending on the agreement we reach with a violator to correct work done without approval, we may put a different expiration date (six months, nine months, etc.) on the COA so the violation is addressed sooner rather than later. Riverside, California is similar in that are COA’s have a time limit but it is 12 months and we indicate as such in our staff report as a Condition of Approval and reiterate the time limit in our approval letter. If a time extension is requested, we generally approve it for 1 year and require the case to go before the Board if originally heard by the Board. However if the case was approved administratively we approve the COA’s administratively. We also do not charge a fee for our COA’s or time extensions of COA’s. Tacoma, Washington The City of Tacoma land use permit procedures outlined in ordinance gives 18 months for a Certificate of Approval/Appropriateness or the life of any permit granted during that 18 months; extensions do not require additional application fee and are generally treated as an administrative review unless the scope of the project has changed in any way, or there is another reason to bring it to the full Commission for another review. COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012 In response to a request by Commissioners in the June 2012 meeting, Staff polled both statewide and national CLG’s to request times of expiration dates for COAs. The above is a summary of the responses that were received. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if Staff was actively involved in gathering the responses. Mr. Minyard responded that he polled the Commission in the statewide responses and the nationwide responses came from the CLG coordinator at AHPP via the listserv. Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that the Van Buren model makes since to her. He asked how many COA’s had been approved and not built. Mr. Minyard stated that he had not looked 21 at every individual file to see if the work had been executed. Chairman Vanlandingham asked how far back the electronic files go to. Mr. Minyard stated that the spreadsheet of activity (COA and COC) goes back to 1981. The spreadsheet does not show whether the work was done or not. Commissioner Wiedower stated that Staff has been modifying the spreadsheets for the last few years to show what has been started and completed. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there was a difference in the time limits given to different types of building permits. Debra Weldon stated she thought it was one year and two year. There was a discussion if a COA could be issued and not trigger a building permit. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there was a way to get a list of building permits for the last few years. Ms. Weldon stated the monetary size of the project determines the time length of the permit. Chairman Vanlandingham asked what would happen if the time limit for a COA expired before the building permit expired. How would the legal Staff look upon that. She stated that it would be a problem and that was the point in which the conversations became circular in the work sessions. Commissioner Wiedower suggested maybe approval of a COA expiring within 12 months unless a permit is issued. Ms. Weldon stated that this would most likely require an ordinance change to institute time limits on COAs and maybe changing the state law. She stated that the state has not addressed time limits, so as long as we are not in conflict with the state, we could do that under the home rule act. The issue would be about the building permits and time frames. Mr. Minyard added that in one of the nationwide responses, your COA was extended as long as you held a valid building permit. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the people that get building permits and never start or finish construction. Is the City aware of these permits? Mr. Minyard explained that the permit holders request inspections, not the City asking the permit holders when they are done. The only way to check would be to see who had not gotten final inspections, however a final inspection is not that your building is finished. It means that it passes health and safety checklists. Mr. Minyard stated that for new buildings in the district, he flags the permits so that he is there on inspections to catch things. He commented that that is how he caught the window discrepancy on the cube house. He commented to a remark that on one hand, if a project is deemed appropriate, it should be appropriate forever, since we are in a historic district. On the other hand, there may be new materials or new ways of construction that would make a project even more appropriate today than before. Another question would be if the guidelines were changed since the item was approved. Commissioner Hendrix stated that the Staff needs more enforcement Staff. She commented that COAs were like building permits, that people get them and never do anything to the property. Ms. Weldon stated that this was an excellent topic for a work session. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if any of the commissioners were opposed to leaving this topic. The answer was no. V. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff did not have any issues to bring forward at this time. Certificates of Compliance Staff did not have any issues to bring forward at this time. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present to speak at this time. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm. Attest: Ch it A, - A4n 06j ecretary /Staff 22 °J - / o - 1 Date Date