Loading...
HDC_02 11 20131 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 11, 2013, 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 BJ Bowen Toni Johnson Kwadjo Boaitey Members Absent: Mark Brown Chris Vanlandingham City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ralph Wilcox Ibrahim Elsaidi Director Erma Hendrix II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of October 8, 2012, December 10, 2012 and January 14, 2013 as modified. Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent. Notice requirements were not meet on the COA application to be heard tonight. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to amend the agenda to move the new Certificates of Appropriateness item to be the next item to be heard. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent. 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: February 11, 2013 APPLICANT: Samirah Alwazir ADDRESS: 314 E 6th Street COA REQUEST: Signage PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 314 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “West 26' OF Lot 7 & West 26' of the South 10' OF Lot 8 block 40 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This one story commercial building was built in the 1960s. The 2006 survey form states: “This standard Commercial 20th Centruy building has aluminum framed windows and doors at front with side walls and back with no openings. Mansard Roof attached to front wall provides protection over sidewalk. The first occupant was Joseph Pritchard Grocery and remained there through the 1960s.” It is not considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The application was made on January 14, 2013 before any signs were installed. Since the application time, 4 signs were installed without the approval of the HDC or Planning Commission. This application is for those four signs. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is going to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit on February 21, 2013. The subject of the Conditional Use Permit is for a “food store under 5,000 square feet with sales of beer.” Also included in this application is for signage without street frontage. Signs must face a street, not a neighboring piece of property as the signs on the east and west sides of the building do. There will also need a franchise permit for the sign on the awning and the ice machine in the front. Franchise permits are for those items that lie within the public right-of-way. STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. 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 3 The guidelines state on page 78: 5. Signs on Commercial Structures: Signs on commercial buildings should be in proportion to the building and should be made of historic materials, such as finished carved wood, glass, copper, or bronze letters. Signs of plastic, plywood, or unfinished wood are not appropriate. Signs should be placed at traditional locations, such as on storefront beltcourses, upper façade walls, hanging or mounted inside windows, or projecting from the face of the building. Lighting for signs should be concealed; up-lit or spot lighting is recommended. “Ghost” signs (historic painted wall signs, frequently on sides of brick buildings) should be preserved and not removed. The signs on the east and west wall are made of a sheet metal and screwed to the wall. This metal is not a recommended material. Lighting for the signage has not been discussed nor installed. This issue will need to be addressed at the meeting. The guidelines speak of commercial buildings, but our commercial building stock varies in architectural style and age. This is probably the latest built commercial building that is in the district being built around 1960. Sign design for that period of architecture may be different than the carved wood or individual bronze letters mounted on the wall as recommended in the guidelines. The question for the Commission is whether the materials, size, and placement of the signs are appropriate for this age of a building. This ice machine in front of the building should also be reviewed. In Section 23-119 of the ordinance, the text states: In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The question for the Commission is whether the ice machine is incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The building has been previously painted yellow, but the Commission does not review paint colors and the masonry building was previously painted gray. The awning has also been repainted to the red color. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 4 Front façade ca. 2006 Front Façade 1-30-2013 East façade ca. 2006 East Façade 1-30-2013 West façade ca. 2006 West Façade 1-30-2013 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit for any interior remodeling. 2. Each sign will require a sign permit from the Planning Department. 3. Obtain a Franchise permit for the awning, sign on awning and the ice machine. COMMISSION ACTION: February 11, 2013 Brian Minyard of Staff explained to the Commission that the notices were not mailed on time and that the item would need to be deferred. He explained that they were five days late on a notice of ten days. The staff has received some green cards back so Staff knows that they did 5 go out. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked how many notices were sent out and Staff replied 23. Mr. Minyard continued that they also have a Conditional Use Permit on this property and told the applicant that they could mail both notifications at the same time in the same envelope. They did that but not in time for the HDC notice. Debra Weldon stated that the bylaws noted that the applicant will be required to re-mail the notices if they missed the first deadline. There was a discussion and it was stated that they had met the deadline for the Planning Commission but had not met the HDC deadline. Mr. Minyard noted that you may mail your notices early in order to meet both deadlines. Commissioner Wiedower asked the applicant if he understood what was happening. Mr. Ibrahim Elsaidi explained that they have posted the sign on the property but claimed he did not know of the deadlines for notifications. Commissioner Wiedower explained that the Commission will have to defer until March. She continued that the application was after the fact; the signs were already up on the building. She did not believe it was going to be a hardship, since he already had erected his signs. She continued that they will not have to take the permanent signs down until after the hearing. Mr. Minyard agreed, but added that after approval by the both Commissions, your signage would have to conform to whatever this Commission says. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that they could not make exceptions for one applicant alone. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer consideration of the item until the March 11, 2013 hearing or until appropriate notices have been met. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded the motion and the item passed with 5 ayes and 2 absent (Vanlandingham and Brown). Mr. Minyard told the applicant that the latest day to send the notices would be March 1st, 2013. 6 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. III. DATE: February 11, 2013 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: Roughly bounded by Wright Ave. on the north, S. Chester St. on the east, S. Ringo St. on the west, and W. 24th St. on the south REQUEST: Creation of the Paul Laurence Dunbar School Neighborhood Historic District PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is roughly bounded by Wright Ave. on the north, S. Chester St. on the east, S. Ringo St. on the west, and W. 24th St. on the south. The nomination consists of multiple properties. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Paul Laurence Dunbar School Neighborhood Historic District 7 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.” 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 8 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. 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 Creation of the Paul Laurence Dunbar School Neighborhood Historic District. The area was surveyed utilizing a CDBG Community Development Block Grant through the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department. The area surveyed was an area bounded by 13th Street, Chester Street, Roosevelt Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Approximately 900 resources were surveyed, all structures were surveyed. The nomination was executed through a CLG Certified Local Government grant and matching funds from the City of Little Rock. The entirety of the area surveyed is not in the nomination of the district. The large amount of demolished buildings skewed the percentages to roughly 40% contributing and 60% non-contributing. Vacant lots count as non-contributing. However, there were about a dozen historically vacant lots that were not counted against the district. A district must have at least 50% contributing to make a district. The nomination boundary is as follows: Beginning at a point at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Cross Street and West 18th Street, the boundary follows West 18th Street approximately 0.07 miles east to a point at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Ringo Street and West 18th Street. It then follows South Ringo Street south approximately 0.07 miles south to a point at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Ringo Street and Wright Avenue. The boundary then follows Wright Avenue east approximately 0.3 miles to a point at the southwest intersection of Wright Avenue and the alley located east of South Ringo Street and west of South Chester Street. The boundary then follows the alley between South Ringo Street and South Chester Street south approximately 0.43 miles to a point at the 9 northwest corner of the alley between South Ringo Street and South Chester Street and the alley south of West 24th Street and north of Roosevelt Avenue. Then the boundary follows west along the alley between West 24th Street and Roosevelt Avenue approximately 0.13 miles to the northeast intersection of the alley between West 24th Street and Roosevelt Avenue and the alley located east of South Pulaski Street and west of South Cross Street. The boundary then follows the alley between South Pulaski Street and South Cross Street north approximately 0.44 miles to the southeast intersection of the alley and Wright Avenue. It then follows Wright Avenue 0.3 miles east to the intersection of Wright Avenue and South Cross Street. It then follows South Cross Street approximately 0.09 miles north to the beginning. With the exception of the School, the district is entirely residential structures dating from 1890 to about 1955. There are 92 contributing resources (including those four already individually listed) and 63 non-contributing. This gives the district 59.3% contributing. Two lots in the 2200 block of Ringo are historically vacant, so they did not count against the totals. Four properties, the Dunbar Junior and Senior High School and Junior college, the Miller House, the Womack House and the Scipio Jones House were previously listed individually or as part of the Historically Black Properties in Little Rock’s Dunbar School neighborhood Multiple Property Submission. 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: February 11, 2013 Brian Minyard made a brief presentation of the item. He explained the process that had happened with CDBG and CLG funding. He explained the areas surveyed versus the area nominated. He noted that the district was being nominated under Criterions A and C. He clarified that this was not a hearing to create a local ordinance historic district and that this was an honorific listing only. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked a question if all structures would be on the national register and if this prohibited demolitions. Mr. Minyard explained that houses could be torn down if they were on the national register; the only result is that your house is taken off the list. Modifications can cause a house to be taken off the register. There will not be any oversight by this Commission on modifications on the structure. Tax credits were briefly discussed. Ralph Wilcox, from AHPP, addressed the Commission and stated that the item was being nominated on Criterion A only, not A and C. He said that the staff felt that it was a stronger nomination and more defensible with Criterion A only. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked who wrote the nomination and stated that she was pleased with the quality of the Statement of Significance that was written for the nomination. She felt that this material adds to the history of Little Rock in this area and felt it was strong work. Mr. Minyard responded that the consultant Cultural Resources Analysts was the author. 10 City Director Erma Hendrix stated that she was a graduate of Dunbar High and asked who on the Commission was a native of Little Rock (Commissioner Julie Wiedower raised her hand). She complimented Mr. Minyard for working with her on this nomination. She was hoping to make a good report to the Dunbar Alumni at their meeting in Las Vegas this July. She is looking forward to the nomination of the district. She spoke of the diversity of the neighborhood in the past. Commissioner Toni Johnson thanked Director Hendrix for being a long term resident of that neighborhood and working on this project. Mr. Minyard stated that it was going to the State Review Board on April 3 and after that it will be forwarded to the National Park Service. Mr. Wilcox stated that he thought it would be reviewed by the National Park Service in time for the Dunbar meeting in Vegas. A motion to support the nomination under Criterion A was made by Commissioner Wiedower and seconded by Commissioner Ripley. The motion passed with 5 ayes and 2 absent (Vanlandingham and Brown). Further discussion included the possibility of having sign toppers installed in the neighborhood and the fact that the AHPP staff has a process to determine which buildings are Contributing versus Non-Contributing. 11 V. Other Matters Trapnall Hall Architect Tommy Jameson made a courtesy presentation to the Commission concerning the work that will go on at the state owned Trapnall Hall. a) Install salvaged 4’ iron fence (former fencing at the Governor’s Mansion) around the north, west and south sides of the parking lot, but not closing it off completely as there will be no gates. The fencing is intended to help alleviate the problem of transient foot traffic across the site. The fencing will be prepped and painted prior to installation. b) Install an 8’ iron gate (to match the existing fencing around the HVAC Units) near the SE corner of the building to secure the back service area. c) Install 4’ black chain link fence installed on top of the brick wall at the rear of the property. d) Install a pole mounted light fixture, matching the fixtures on Capitol in front of the building, in the parking island immediately west of the front porch to provide additional lighting for the parking area and the accessible entrance. e) Install new wall mounted sconce lighting in the rear courtyard area. There will be fencing that will be reused from the Governor’s Mansion that will be installed at Trapnall Hall to make it more difficult for cut through pedestrian traffic. Other fencing will be installed to keep homeless people out of the outside storage area. A lamppost that will match the lights on Capitol Avenue will be installed in the parking lot. It was explained that T1 on the plan represents the lamp post and T2 is wall niche fixtures. Commissioner Ripley asked why they were exempt from the review of the Commission. The answer is that they are state owned and thus exempt. There was a discussion on what properties were abutting the property and their uses and fencing between it and adjacent properties. Commissioner Julie Wiedower appreciated him sharing the information with the Commission. She reiterated the fact that it was a 48” high fence with no gates. Mr. Jameson stated that they were not trying to make this a fortress. 12 DATE: February 11, 2013 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District Wide REQUEST: Amend Guidelines to create Institutional Category BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: During the December 10, 2012 HDC meeting, the Commission reviewed a COA for a fence at the northeast corner of MacArthur Park at the playground site. The subject arose that the existing Guidelines may not be the most appropriate since the application was neither Residential nor commercial. The applicant withdrew the fencing component of the item. Staff announced to the Commission that this item would be on the next agenda for their discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, Staff determined that institutional uses are properties of at least one-half block in size that houses a public use: a church, a school, a museum, a park, etc. Letters were sent to the following institutions to ask them to attend this hearing: Quapaw Quarter Association, St. Edwards Church/School, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, Arkansas Arts Center, Rockefeller Magnet School/ LRSD, City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation and the Lutheran Church. This letter stated that the Commission would be discussing items such as signage, fencing, setbacks of buildings, building heights, building materials, etc. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The guidelines have been amended in the past, most notably in May 2006 and again in August 2010. The Commission has the authority to amend their guidelines and adopt the changes. The state statute under section 14-172-207, states that the proposed historic district shall have an ordinance designed to implement the provisions of the subchapter. The city ordinance under section 23-100 States: Sec. 23-100. - Duties generally. (a) Historic district guidelines. (1) The historic district commission shall adopt design review guidelines for each local ordinance historic district established pursuant to this article. The guidelines should provide the commissioners with an objective standard for decisions concerning the appropriateness of a project in relation to the architectural and historical character of the district. 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. 13 (2) Design review guidelines shall be reviewed periodically by the historic district commission for needed revision to ensure that the guidelines are well adapted to the respective local ordinance historic district. The current Guidelines state the following concerning Institutional uses. On page 69, there is reference to “Commercial, Office and Institutional Parking.” And on page 70, there is reference to “Garbage collectors” for multifamily and institutional sites. A word search of the guidelines found the word institutional elsewhere only in the appendices. Staff would propose the following timeline for this item: 1. Listening session on what changes are desired from the various institutions. 2. Discussion by the Commission of various topics posed by the citizens. 3. Draft of language and graphics submitted by Staff to the Commission for review. 4. Discussion by Commission on draft language and graphics. 5. Public hearing on revised language. 6. Adoption of new Guidelines. This review will take an expected four to five months. With this review, other sections of the guidelines will be affected when text is moved to a different section or clarified that it does or does not apply to institutional uses. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment regarding this item from Stephan McAteer of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History concerning process. COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the Guidelines item. Ron Ross, Parks and Recreation, started a general discussion of how to relate to the guidelines and educational values of preservation and helping find ways to do so. He stated that he may not be totally prepared to have a discussion on the guidelines and would appreciate more time to come up with items for discussion. He commented that the last application started to do so. He urged flexibility in interpreting the guidelines. The past application may have taken a different look of there were different guidelines in place, in particular the height of the fencing. He does look forward to the conversation. Stephen McAteer stated that he was not here representing the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. He did state that he works in a 173 year old building and was representing the MacArthur Park Group that has meet for the last six years in the museum. They have a diverse group to promote and utilize MacArthur Park as a green park. The park is interpreted in many periods of time. He stated that he stands by his statement of what is good for the park is good for the Museum and vice versa. He spoke of the Master Plan process and that it spoke of Safety. He spoke of proposed improvements to the playground. They have heard from parents of students that use the park concerned with safety. In hindsight, they should have stressed safety instead of trying to keep undesirable people out of the park. He urged for wiggle room from current guidelines and how to modify to make park more viable and user friendly. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if there was information on the usage of the playground outside of St. Edwards. She said that there is adult supervision when the school children are 14 there, but who else uses it? Mr. McAteer did not have any stats on that. He thought that there should not be any extraordinary accommodations for St. Edwards to use the playground. He has seen parents with children on the weekend. With the fence being down, it has allowed for more traffic for non-playground traffic in the immediate area. He thought that maybe different heights on different sides of the playground. We can talk as adults what we would do, but children do not always practice good judgment (i.e.: chasing balls into the roadway). When asked about moving the playground to a different spot, he commented that it was like a house of cards of moving other activities around to find a different spot for the playground. The height of the current fence was discussed and it is 36” tall in the iron section and 40” tall in the brick sections. He continued that the new drives have put a new complexion on the park for the better. He was willing to trust the authorities on the placement and it is good to be able to park near the pond. He has noticed increased usage in area of increased lighting and the new drive areas. He has also noted more usage by females by themselves in the park. Mr. McAteer noted that they have funds for the dog park and hopefully will be done in six months or so. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that he would like to think that the dog park will create a more defensible space in the Park with more visibility from the freeway. He stated that more good users than bad users. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham noted that the great lawn along Ninth Street was getting more uses. Commissioner Ripley stated that the park should be defined as a destination, and it could be as big as the River Market. Mr. McAteer noted that the Arkansas Arts Center has a lot of students there and a lot of them have lunch in the park. Students on fieldtrips use the playground. Commissioner Ripley says the park should be more diverse for more types of users. Commissioner Wiedower spoke of conflict between St. Edwards’s children and other children. Mr. McAteer stated that the St Edwards children were there at recess, but not at lunch. He continued that there is a lot of acreage at the park and it was more convenient for kids to use the south end of the park. Commissioner Wiedower commented on the large variety of institutional uses in the area and named several. Chairman Vanlandingham stressed prospective in the guidelines. He continued that we have the opportunity to create a fabric for the district with design elements that weaves the district together. Commissioner Ripley is not in favor of modern contemporary fences and should be woven into the historic district better. Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff to make a map of the institutional uses, including all churches. She asked to add the commercial buildings also. A discussion on fences at the institutional uses was held and Chairman Vanlandingham stated that the fences were all over the place for institutional uses. There was a brief discussion on establishing precedent and how the HDC does not establish precedent on any of its cases. Debra Weldon weighed in on the subject and state that there needs to be a standard of review for each case or it could; be found that your decisions were arbitrary or capricious. STAFF UPDATE: February 11, 2011 15 Institutional uses are typically defined as public and quasi-public facilities that provide a variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations and hospitals. The district has schools, fire stations, and churches in addition to police stations, museums, parks, etc. Currently the Guidelines do not have a separate category for institutional uses. If a category were to be added to the Guidelines, the other sections would need to be named or renamed. As of the current August 2010 version, Commercial is called out and everything else is in the other category. At the end of this report is a map of the institutional uses that were either built as institutional or currently function as institutional uses. It also includes those buildings that were built to a commercial standard. It is Staff’s opinion that there are four options on changes to the guidelines: 1) review changes based on what the building is used for now, 2) what the building was originally built for, 3) review based on the scale of the building’s scale/placement on the lot and size of the grounds, and 4) no change to the guidelines. When considering these proposed changes, note what buildings are being grouped together and if those buildings should be reviewed with the same guidelines. These four categories will be explored after the chart. Later in this report, they are referred to as “major categories.” Below is chart of properties for the Commission to consider. The options discussed later in the report reference the columns to the right of the chart. What: Location Built as: Used As: Scale: Police Station 301 E Capitol Institutional - Police Station Institutional Commercial Paragon Building 311 E Capitol Commercial Institutional Commercial Legion Post 315 E Capitol Institutional Institutional Commercial Trapnall Hall 423 E Capitol Residential - Single Family Institutional Residential - large lot Curran Hall 615 E Capitol Residential - Single Family Institutional Residential - large lot Lucky & Diner 314 E 6th Commercial Commercial Commercial Lutheran Church 314 E 8th Institutional - Church/classrooms and 2 residences Institutional Institutional Terry Mansion 411 E 7th Residential - Single Family Institutional Residential - large lot Kramer Elementary 715 Sherman Institutional - School Residential Institutional - large lot Cumberland Towers 311 E 8th Residential - Apartments Residential Residential – large lot Commercial block 400-402 E 9th Commercial Commercial Commercial Fire Station 524 E 9th Institutional - Fire Station Institutional Institutional 16 St. Edwards Church 821 Sherman Institutional - Church, convent, school, residence Institutional Institutional Knights of Columbus 215 E 9th Institutional- hall Commercial Commercial Commercial Block 901 Rock / 407 E 9th Commercial Commercial Commercial Arkansas Arts Center 501 E 9th Institutional - Arts center Institutional Institutional – large lot Arsenal Building 503 E 9th Institutional - Arsenal Institutional Institutional – large lot MacArthur Park 9th, commerce, McMath Institutional - Arsenal grounds Institutional Institutional - large lot Red Crown/Fashion Park Cleaners 1101 Cumberland Commercial - Water Bottling Company Commercial Commercial Teacher retirement 1200 Commerce Residential - Apartments Residential Residential – large lot Law School Dorms 1016 McGowan Residential - Apartments Residential Institutional UAMS Hospital / law School 1215 McMath Institutional - Hospital Institutional Institutional – large lot East Side School 1401 Scott / 1400 Cumberland Institutional - School Residential Institutional - large lot Rockefeller School 700 E 17th Institutional - School Institutional Institutional – large lot Many houses and apartment building on single lots Residential Residential Residential Houses converted to office space Residential Commercial Residential Option One: Review changes on what the building is used for now. If the Guidelines divided the uses as to what they were used as now, the following major categories would emerge. Those being used as Commercial would be the Lucky 7 Diner, the commercial blocks in the 400 block of 9th and the Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed the same under the Commercial section. The Residential section would be Kramer School and Eastside School apartments; the Law School Dorms; the apartment towers of Cumberland Towers and the Teacher Retirement apartments; and all other single and multifamily buildings would be reviewed the same under the Residential section. The rest would be Institutional uses. The guidelines would treat all of these applications in these three major categories, instead of the two we have now (Commercial and everything else.) If a building has changed 17 uses, would the new guidelines fit? Does Eastside School need the same guidelines as a single family house? Option Two: Review the changes on what the building was built for originally. With this option, the major categories would be a follows: The Paragon Building, the commercial blocks in the 400 block of 9th and the Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed as Commercial. The institutional uses would be the schools converted to apartments, museums, fire/police stations, and fraternal organizations which would be reviewed the same under the Institutional section. The apartment buildings (including towers) single family homes, dorms, Trapnall and Curran Halls and the Terry Mansion would be reviewed the same under the Residential section. Should the Cumberland Towers be reviewed by same standard as a single family house? Should the police station be held to the same standard as MacArthur Park? Option Three: Review the changes based on the scale of the buildings/grounds. Commercial buildings typically sit on the front property line, are most if not all of the entire width of the property, and have the architectural style of 19th or 20th Century commercial structures. The Police Station / Paragon building, the commercial blocks on E 9th, the Legion Post, Knights of Columbus, and Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed under the major category “Commercial Scale” standards. The next group of buildings would be all churches, the Fire Station, Law school dorms, schools converted to housing, MacArthur Park, the Arts Center and the Law School. These buildings have various architectural styles, but have mass of building in common. These properties also have the largest front lawns and a larger footprint to lot ratio. These would be reviewed under the major category “Large Scale” Standards. Buildings built as residential houses, houses converted to office uses, and small scale apartments will be reviewed under the “Small Scale” standards. Option Four – do nothing. Within the current Guidelines, the “Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation”, in Section IV deals with all structures in the district, even though the language states “house” in several locations. If that word were switched to “building” or “structure”, there would not be a question that it related to all buildings in the districts. Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction is written to address all buildings in the district. There could be another graphic showing commercial or institutional uses at the end of new Construction of primary and secondary buildings. The graphics are geared toward s the residential instead of all types of uses. Section VI, Design Guidelines for Site Design needs to be revamped. Landscape Features (Sidewalks, Planned Green Space, Fences and Retaining Walls), Lighting, parking areas, mechanical systems and signage should be adjusted to the different categories as spelled out in the four options above. Fences could be of a different scale for the large scale properties and/or institutional uses. In the parking section on page 69, is one of the two spots in the Guidelines where the word institutional is used. There it is lumped in with commercial and office uses. This language works for all of those uses, but may need to be repeated in the different sections. Other things need to be revised in this section, but they are not discerned at this time. Section VIII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures works well for the traditional commercial structures as found along 9th Street. Although, the guidelines assume all of the districts commercial structures are two story buildings, which in fact they are not. Another graphic needs 18 to be added to address one story buildings. Signs are addressed here, but are limited to the late 19th and early 20th century buildings based on the text. One suggestion would be to leave sections I-IV as they are now with changing the references to buildings or structures instead of houses. Section VI, Design Guidelines for Site Design would have three subsections with the different categories (addressing parking, for example, under each category) or address each category in the text as it is shown now (addressing the three major categories under parking with a side by side caparison.) Section VIII Guidelines for Commercial Structures would be melded into Sections VI and IV as needed. Section VI, Guidelines for Relocation and Demolition would remain as is. Another suggestion is to place all of the treatment of original materials and individual building elements in the same section (Section IV). Section V Design Guidelines for Additions and Alterations would address all three major categories. A new section would be added to address new construction of all major categories. Section VI Design guidelines for Site Design would also address the three major categories. COMMISSION ACTION: February 11, 2013 Brian Minyard made a presentation of the update to the Commission and covered the various options. He summarized the staff report and what problems arise. Option 1 was to review buildings as they are used now. Option 2 is to review the changes on what the building was built for originally. Option 3 is to review the changes based on the scale of the buildings/grounds. Option 4 is to do nothing. He asked for some guidance from the Commission on how to organize the information or changes to the text to give back to the Commission. Commissioner Julie Wiedower was not convinced that we needed to do a lot---- maintaining a feeling for the overall district. She was sorry that Commissioner Mark Brown was not there and wanted to hear his thoughts. She is not sure that Options 1 and 2 may not be germane to keeping the feel of the district. Option 3 may make sense based on scale. You may need a higher fence because you are fencing a larger area. A discussion centered on surveys of other towns and what they do. Mr. Minyard stated that he had polled the state CLG partners and posted it on the NAPC listserv. He replied to Commissioner Wiedower that if we handled it this way, we would be breaking new ground. Commissioner Wiedower said that if the only instance was the fence at MacArthur Park, it was not necessary to rewrite the Guidelines. Mr. Minyard stated that the Guidelines were just that, guidelines. If the Commission felt there was a reason for a different height, they would state so in the deliberations. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated he had similar thoughts as Commissioner Wiedower. Options 1 and 2 create some restriction that would be on some properties, he would want all decisions to be equitable. He stated he may lean towards doing nothing. In some cases, he would look at the building as how it is used now, versus how it was used originally. Each case would be different. Commissioner Toni Johnson agreed with the two previous Commissioners. New Construction will be the hardest cases. She wants to look closer on infill structures because they are having more variety coming in front of the Commission. She commented when she read the Guidelines, sometimes there was not enough guidance in the text. Commissioner Ripley stated that developers want to build market driven products which puts a quandary for contemporary infill. 19 Commissioner BJ Bowen sees more people coming in for fencing, higher for security, but not enough to go by in Guidelines. He wants more text for fencing in Guidelines. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the Fire Station and the state owned law school already have 6’ fences in some areas. She wondered if rewriting the Guidelines was a valid use of time. Or do we just look at fencing? She would like to hear Commissioner Brown’s comments on this. Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey is leaning towards Option 3 or Option 4. He continued that fences were subjective based on who and when they were approved. Commissioner Wiedower stated that fences come and go, but the buildings were the important thing. Mr. Minyard clarified that when he said Option 4 was do nothing; he was being a bit simplistic. In Section 4, the word house may need to be changed to the word building. In the Legal section, it has been discussed to put the state of emergency clause in there, there are some typos in the document, and two pages out of order. These would be considered as cleanup, not a total rewrite. On the fencing item, it may be as simple as adding text to the effect of different scales of buildings and grounds may dictate different scales of fencing. It was decided that the scale of the fencing versus open space would be the talk for the next hearing. Commissioner Ripley commented on the space between the building and the fence made a difference in the height of the fence. Commissioner Wiedower asked to continue the discussion next month on fencing and scale. Mr. Minyard said that he would take the text of the Guidelines and mark up the changes. Commissioner Boaitey asked about the time limits on COAs and if it needed to be added to the Guideline discussion. Debra Weldon asked if it was most appropriate in the bylaws. It was discussed if we needed to attach the bylaws to the applications. Maybe it would be included in the instruction pages. Vi. Enforcement issues Brian Minyard reported that there were no additional enforcement issues to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance Staff will send the spreadsheet on Certificates of Compliance to the Commission. In Response to a question, Mr. Minyard said that Page Wilson has not come into the department for a building permit on his latest COA. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present at this time. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:10 p.m. Attest: Ch Secretary /Staff 20 �- (/ -f.3 Date Date