The URL can be used to link to this page

HDC_06 10 20131 of 34 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 11, 2013 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Chris Vanlandingham BJ Bowen Mark Brown Kwadjo Boaitey Members Absent: Toni Johnson City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ian Beard Debra Horne II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of May 13, 2013, as amended. Commissioner Wiedower abstained on the vote for the April 2013 minutes because she was not in attendance that day. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 absent (Johnson) and one abstain (Vanlandingham). Notice requirements were met on both applications 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 of 34 DATE: June 10, 2013 APPLICANT: Theron Cash, Stone’s Throw Brewery ADDRESS: 402 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Signage, Planters, Awnings and Bike Rack PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 402 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “W 80’ of Lot 6, Block 60, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This commercial building, known as Baker’s Liquor was built ca. 1922. The 2006 survey form states: “Unusual shape building which may have been altered on front southwest corner to its current shape. Projecting corner and decorative metal vents on south elevation are older. Corner of Building was angled in 1950.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Signage, Planters, Awnings and a Bike Rack. The signage will include wall mount, projecting and signs in windows and doors. The awnings will be on the south elevation. The planters and bike rack will go in the paved area to the west to discourage drive through vehicular traffic and promote bicycle traffic. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On August 20, 2007, a letter was sent to the owner, Betty Krenz to remove shutters that wer e placed on the south side of the building without a COA. The Shutters were removed. On April 7, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Betty Krenz for an addition of a double door to the north facade of the building. 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 of 34 Existing west elevation Existing south elevation PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is for four elements: signage, awnings, planters and bike rack. Proposed Signage and Awnings SIGNAGE The Guidelines state on page 71: E. SIGNS Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of buildings. 1. Attached to Building: Signs attached to a building should not cover or obscure architectural features. Signs may be painted on windows, doors, or small panels at entrances or on 4 of 34 awnings. Small signs may be flush-mounted on a building wall; may be hung on porches between posts; or may project from the structure. A sign on a masonry wall should be mounted in the mortar, not the masonry. 2. Free-Standing: Free-standing signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non- shiny finish. The recommended size should not exceed six square feet in area. These signs should be located in landscaped areas. All ground mounted (free standing) signs in the UU zoning district must be approved by the Board of Adjustment in addition to the Historic District Commission. Examples of appropriate signs are illustrated to the right. For signs in the R4-A district, please consult Staff for further information. 3. Materials for signs: Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted materials, or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building materials. 4. Design of signs: The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and style. Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a building, coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should not be used. 5. Lighting of signs: Lighting of signs should be from remote sources, preferably for the ground aimed directly at the sign and shielded from street view. Lighting should not use visible bulbs, internal sources or luminous paint. The signs are as follows: The first sign is shown in the graphic to the right. It is a metal or vinyl material manufactured to adhere to the brick façade mimicking the look and texture of a sign painted directly on the brick measuring 48” wide and 72” tall, flush mounted on the west wall. It will be lighted with a gooseneck light fixture ADLXSV930 shown below. Staff is unsure on what the effect of a vinyl material adhering to the brick wall would have on the condition of the brick in the future in relation to the moisture content of the brick. A metal sign screwed to the wall would be, in Staff’s opinion, a less obtrusive attachment method of the sign. However, metal is not on the list of recommended materials. The projecting sign, described below is out of a material that would emulate the look of carved wood. This would be the best option for this sign. Signage on west facade 5 of 34 The second sign is a projecting sign that is shown in the graphic on the previous page and below. The projecting sign would be mounted on the corner of the building. It would be made either of metal or a routed HDU (high density urethane) material to simulate carved wood projecting 24” from the wall and 36” tall with 13’ of clearance from the sidewalk. The sign would be lighted with gooseneck light fixtures as shown above or similar. The HDU which could be carved to look like wood would be preferable to the metal sign. The Guidelines state that wood is appropriate for signs, and a carved sign that looked like wood would be more appropriate than a metal sign. The third and fourth signs will be vinyl cling or decals in the windows on the south side of the building. These are shown in the graphic above. The one in the door would be 24” square and the one in the window would be 42” square. They intend to use this door as the primary entrance to the business’s tasting room. A vinyl cling sign with a clear backing could be the new version of painted window signs. AWNINGS The Guidelines state on page 78: 3. Awnings on Commercial Structures: Awnings may be added to commercial buildings if physical or pictorial evidence exists. Awnings should be of a traditional design, materials, and placement. Gooseneck light fixture ADLXSV930 for signs Economy RLM shade with 857 Gooseneck bracket over doorway Projecting sign on SW corner of building Window signs in Door and window of south facade 6 of 34 Canvas, acrylic, or vinyl-coated materials are preferable to fixed metal or wood awnings. The awnings will be 84” x 36” tall made of vinyl or canvas. These are shown to be mounted in the traditional locations over the windows. There is no mention of what color the awnings would be, although the graphic shows them in brown. There is a request for a light over the left side door (the one with the window sign) for a light fixture. It is shown above as the “Economy RLM shade with 857 Gooseneck bracket”. PLANTERS Planters are not specifically called out in the design guidelines. The ordinance (Sec. 23-115.) states that these shall be reviewed by the Commission. “no building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished within the historic district…” However, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards give guidance in standard numbers 3, 9 and 10, which respectively state the following (paraphrased): 3) changes that create a false sense of historical development shall not be undertaken. 9) New additions or alterations shall not destroy historic fabric and shall be differentiated from the old. 10) New additions and modifications shall be able to be removed later without harming the structure. The 10 planters are proposed to prevent cut through traffic in the paved area. Each planter would be 17” high and 25” wide or similar. There is also a request for three rain barrels on the north wall. “The wooden barrels were chosen because of the historic association with the brewing industry as the vessel for transporting and serving beer before steel kegs became the container of choice.” The locations of the planters are shown in the sketch below. Plants will be installed in the planters. BIKE RACK Bike Racks are not specifically called out in the design guidelines. The ordinance (Sec. 23-115.) states that these shall be reviewed by the Commission. “no building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished within the historic district…” However, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards give guidance in standard numbers 3, 9 and 10, which respectively state the following (paraphrased): 3) changes that create a false sense of historical development shall not be undertaken. 9) New additions or alterations shall not destroy historic fabric and shall be differentiated from the old. 10) New additions and modifications shall be able to be removed later without Awnings on the south facade Barrel planter Bike Rack 7 of 34 harming the structure. The bike rack is 33” tall and no more than 72” long. It is manufactured by Bike Suburban, model # BSB-4.9 or similar. It is of simple design and is appropriate. Site plan with planters and bike rack 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 sign permit for each sign installed. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission on the item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if Staff had any idea if the glazed tile on the south façade could come off of the building. Mr. Minyard replied that in his opinion it would be difficult to remove and depending on the style of the brick, might leave an unattractive finish or damage the bricks by doing so. Mr. Minyard answered Commissioner Ripley’s answer that he did not know when the tile was added to the building. 8 of 34 Chairman Chris Vanlandingham clarified what improvements were included with this item. The rain barrels are part of this item for review. Mr. Ian Beard, the applicant and one of the four owners of the brewery, spoke to the Commission. They will be running a nano-brewery, which means a small batch brewery. They are encouraging biking and walking to the facility. He hopes to be open this month and selling next month. He stated that the items on the agenda tonight were their dream, the decals on the windows will be first and the planters will probably be installed next. Commissioner Wiedower asked how the deliveries would be made. Mr. Beard responded that they have a parking area in the rear for deliveries. They will be self -delivering, in their own vehicles. Commissioner Ripley asked if there was parking available at the location. Mr. Beard responded that they have shared access to a parking area to the north (back) of the building that they share with the apartments next door. Commissioner Wiedower asked about hours. Mr. Beard said that in the Planning Commission, they committed to stay open no later than 9:00 pm. Hours for various days were discussed. Commissioner Ripley asked about how the signs would be attached to the building. Mr. Beard said that the sign company had come up with the idea for the self-adhesive sign. Commissioner Wiedower said that the banner sign in metal would be appropriate for the time of the building. Chairman Vanlandingham asked the commissioners if there were any comments on the windows decals. There were none. He then asked if there were discussion on the hanging projection sign. He asked if it was the applicant’s intention to make that out of metal. Mr. Beard said that the base request was to make the sign out of painted metal for ease of mounting and expense. Commissioner Wiedower said that she has seen similar signs of size and shape in other historic districts and thought that it would be appropriate. The projecting sign would be 13’ off the sidewalk with signs on both sides. There would be two gooseneck lamps for illumination. Mr. Beard continued that he wanted the sign to stick out into the street, but was not sure if it was appropriate or not. Mr. Minyard interjected that the projecting sign would potentially be in the city right-of-way and that it would require a franchise permit from the city. Franchise permits are not guaranteed and if not approved, the sign’s orientation would have to be changed. The Commission agreed that if the orientation for the sign had to be changed, Staff could administratively change that. Commissioner Ripley stated that the Commission had to be very clear on what they are approving and that what was installed was what was approved. Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if the Guidelines required bronze or copper. Mr. Minyard stated that his interpretation of that in the Guidelines was for plaques at eye level near the d oor as used at professional office buildings. He continued that the Guidelines should be interpreted by each commissioner relative to the case at hand. Chairman Vanlandingham asked the Commission to discuss the sign that would be mounted on the diagonal wall. Mr. Beard said that the signs would be matching signs with the same style with a slightly different size. The sign would be mounted approximately 12” over the top of the windows but below the electrical service lines. There was a discussion on the ability of the 9 of 34 artwork to be adapted so that it would appear to be painted on the brick even though it was a metal sign. A goose neck light will illuminate the sign. The discussion then focused on the awnings. Mr. Beard said that the color would be brown as shown in the graphics. The awnings will cover window ac units currently installed, which he thought would be a plus. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they were operable awnings. Mr. Beard said that he did not know. Commissioner Ripley asked what size they were. Mr. Beard stated they were 84” x 36” tall but did not know how far they stuck out over the sidewalk. Chairman Vanlandingham started the discussion on the planters. Commissioner Wiedower asked what was in the planters. Mr. Beard said various plants and maybe even hops. The planters will be movable if a food truck was to park on the location. Chairman Vanlandingham asked about the quantity and placement. Mr. Beard said it was as submitted. He then asked about the rain barrels. Mr. Beard said that they would help in the flooding problems in the rear parking lot and will be used to water the plants in the planters. There will not be any formal irrigation system on the planters. The rain barrels will be placed at the downspouts. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there were any questions from the Commission concerning the bike rack. There were none. He then asked if they owned the building. Mr. Beard said they were acting as agents for Betty Krenz Associates that owned the building. Mr. Beard amended his application to only have metal signs for the projecting sign and the wall mounted sign. Debra Horne, of 411 E 9th, said that the building was empty and it would be great to have neighbors. She was supportive of the request. Commissioner W iedower made a motion to approve the application as amended with Staff recommendations with the condition that if the franchise permit did not allow the projecting sign, that Staff could adjust the angle of the sign. The motion was seconded by Commissione r Mark Brown and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Johnson). 10 of 34 DATE: June 10, 2013 APPLICANT: John Hofheimer ADDRESS: 407 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 407 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “East 65’ of Lots 1, 2 &3 Block 59, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This Kindervarter commercial building was built in 1921. The 1988 survey form states: “A commercial building with first floor alterations.” The top level is being used as a residence. It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the installation of a Fence. The Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department had declared the tin building in the rear of the structure to be unsafe. That building has been demolished, but before, it had formed part of the containment for the back yard. With this gone, the yard is open. A fence is desired to keep pets in and general security. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 4, 2001, a COA was approved and issued to John Hofheimer for exterior renovations including stabilizing and rehabilitating structure, repair and replace windows and constructing deck on rear of building. On August 8, 2001, an administrative approval was granted for interior renovations to John Hofheimer. 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. Two. Location of Project 11 of 34 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66, The Guidelines state: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall; pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the house. Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72”), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. The fence is described as a wooden dog-eared privacy fence, 6 foot tall inside the property line. The fence will be 35 feet long on the east-west line and 17 feet long on the north south line. Both of these fences would abut other existing fences. This would completely enclose the backyard. The finished side of the fence would face out, with the rails being on the inside. The fence will be sealed with a clear sealer. 12 of 34 This fence proposed would comply with the guidelines for privacy fences in the rear of structures. A temporary fence has been erected to prevent the dog(s) from escaping in the meantime until the COA is approved. This fence is constructed of pre-fab panels of the six foot dog ear wood fence placed in the interior of the yard, not where the final fence is to be located. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission on the item. He apologized for not including the graphic in the agenda. He showed the graphic to the Commission and explained where the new fence was to be located. Debra Horne, representing the applicant, stated that there are three dogs that live in the backyard and they need the fence to keep the dogs in and for general security reasons. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked if the proposed fence would match the fence at Maxie’s (the house to the east). Ms. Horne stated that the section of fence that is 35’ long would match the neighbor’s fence and would also match the fence on the east. They are proposing to fill in the gap where the building used to be. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if they were going to use prefab fence panels. She stated yes. There were no citizens present to speak. Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendation for a building permit. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Johnson). Commissioner Wiedower commented on the ghost sign that is visible on the building and asked Staff to forward information to the applicant on grant opportunities to restore the ghost sign. Tin building that has been removed 13 of 34 DATE: March 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. 14 of 34 (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 15 of 34 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 W iedower 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. 16 of 34 STAFF UPDATE: February 11, 2011 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 17 of 34 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 18 of 34 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 19 of 34 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. 20 of 34 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 W iedower 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. STAFF UPDATE: March 11, 2013 Staff updated the Guidelines using a modified Option 4. Minor changes were made to make Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation read to include all buildings, not just houses. Included in your packets are PDFs of the modified sheets out of the guidelines. The changes are in bold red letters. The majority of the changes are from the word “house” to the word “building”. Occasionally, there was a misspelled word that has been corrected. There are additional sentences concerning fencing and streetscape at commercial buildings. There is notation of needing additional photos on one page. Not shown is the following changes that need to be made and updated. Appendix A Map of all Historic districts, Appendix B listing of the National Register Districts, Appendix E COA application package, Appendix F Sample COA, Appendix G Sample COC, Overall map of Mac Arthur Park Historic District, Acknowledgements page, Table of Contents, and Cover. The pages will be renumbered with the forward in roman numerals which means the PDFs that are in this package are numbered 8 pages less than in the current version of the Guidelines, i.e.; Page 80 in the current version is now page 72 in the proposed version. 21 of 34 COMMISSION ACTION: March 11, 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission with the updated changes going with the modified Option 4 replacing the word “houses” with the word “building”. All of the pages with changes were sent to the Commissioners. They discussed the commercial streetscape edits and fencing edits. They discussed overall fence requirements citywide versus what is required in MacArthur Park. It was stated by both staff that the Historic District commission cannot grant variances to the City code. When the applicant needs a variance from the city code, the HDC makes a recommendation to the governing body. The HDC can make a COA that is more restrictive than the code, but cannot grant variances. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the heights for different types of fences. The guidelines state 36” for wood fences but do not specifically state 36” for iron or other types of fences. Mr. Minyard said that he would work on that. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked if a summary of heights on fences; a quick answer on top of paragraph; could be added to the top of the different sections of the guidelines. He asked to check on the fencing and other sections. Mr. Minyard continued that he changed the section on Commercial sidewalks on old page 78 of the guidelines. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the list of commercial buildings that was listed in the Staff report when it comes to zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the zoning category of O-2 Office and Institutional and how that affects the MacArthur Park Historic District. The park itself is zoned PR – Parks and Recreation and related the fence and use requirements of that zoning. Mr. Minyard answered that there needed to be some additional edits on the Guidelines that will need to be done before the final vote. There was a discussion on whether the timeline of projects should be in the Guidelines or on application. It was decided that it could be included on the application. Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, spoke about the emergency waiver conditions and whether they should be included in the Guidelines’ Legal Authority section. The emergency conditions would vary concerning the incident so it would be difficult to predict what the state of emergency would entail by mayoral proclamation. She is concerned that it could be misconstrued what a state of emergency means and the extent geographically and for what review items or procedures would be included. She suggested that it be left as an administrative staff procedure. After discussion, neglectful maintenance does not constitute a state of emergency. COMMISSION ACTION: April 8, 2013 Chairman Vanlandingham stated that this discussion will be deferred to the May 2013 hearing. COMMISSION ACTION: May 13, 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff, asked if everybody got the new page 70 with the new photos on it. He asked if everybody had a chance to look at the guidelines since he sent a complete copy with color pages on the changed pages. 22 of 34 Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the change to only review things that are visible from the right-of-way was included I the new Guidelines. She said that she did not find it. Debra Weldon responded that it had been included in the ordinance revision, Ordinance # 20423. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she had not had time to read the document page by page and had asked that the item be deferred to the June 10, 2013 hearing. Commissioner BJ Bowen made a motion to that effect and Commissioner Mark Brown seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2013 Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that she read the Guidelines and has some corrections to add. On page 2 with the chart on Procedures, there are extra characters in the chart. On page 3, where it says that “This COA requirement does not apply to… consider adding a fifth bullet stating if it is not visible form a public street. On page 44, pertaining to screen and storm windows, she suggested to add the word Exterior at the beginning of the line “Screen and storm windows should be wood or baked-on enamel…” On page 57, add text to the end of the sentence highlighted in red to read: Historic Streetscapes in front of commercial or institutional buildings may have been different than residential streetscapes in respect to street orientation, fencing and planting spaces. On page 58, on landscape fences and retaining walls, the sentence highlighted in red stating 36” seems to be conflicting with the statement of fence heights being proportional to the scale of the buildings and grounds. Also on page 58, Fences in rear yard, add the words “of building” to the end of the sentence “…at least halfway between the front and back walls.” On page 108, Appendix L, she suggested that I check the QQA and HPAA addresses and contacts. On page 109, Appendix L, she noted that Arkansas was not in the southwest office any; more at the National Trust. Mr. Minyard stated that he would look at all of the items above and send a new draft out with the next agenda package. 23 of 34 Map 24 of 34 DATE: June 10, 2013 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide COA REQUEST: Time Limits on COAs. The topic of time limits on approved COAs has been discussed during hearings since at least September 2006. The Staff had recommended time limits and the Commission had approved them in the past, and then the Staff/Commission ceased doing so because it was determined that it was not in the power of the Commission to do so. The Commission at that time decided to not have time limits on the COAs. Now, the Commission desires to apply time limits on COAs again. Debra Weldon has stated that the Bylaws will need to be amended to include such actions, but an ordinance revision will need to be in place before the time limits can be enacted. Discussion within the past twelve months has centered along tying the COA to the building permit. Building permits are issued for either 1, 2, or 3 years based on the amount of money the permit is being requested for. An extension of 90 days can be granted for cause and will cost one half of the original permit. A question that needs to be addressed is that if multiple permits are required to construct the improvements (Building permit, Electrical Permit, Plumbing permit, HVAC Permit, Miscellaneous Permits), which permit is the COA tied to? Does the COA expire at the time the last permit expires if there are concurrent permits? Below is the recommended ordinance text revision. Underlined text is proposed. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. (a) COA Requirement. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. 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. 25 of 34 (b) COA Expiration. A certificate of appropriateness shall expire if all permits required for constructing or altering structures are not obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness. If all required permits are obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness, the certificate of appropriateness shall be valid as long as each permit remains valid. If a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures is not required, a certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for one year; and the project must be completed within that one- year period. A six-month extension of a certificate of appropriateness may be granted by the commission based on good cause beyond the control of the applicant. All applications for extension of a certificate of appropriateness must be submitted to the commission at least one (1) month prior to expiration of the certificate of appropriateness. Below are excerpts of the minute records of discussion on time limits. From 9-11-06 minutes: The topic of time limits for completion or commencement of COA’s were discussed by the Commission. It was decided by the commission to add it to the Staff Recommendations on a case-by-case basis. From 10-13-08 minutes: A discussion ensued on time conditions on COA’s, in particular, the vacant lot on Rock Street by Answerfone. Mr. Minyard asked of Ms. Weldon if the time condition ran out, would the applicant have to reappear before the commission before proceeding with work if there was no changes. She stated that the commission would have to give permission to Staff to do that. Chairman Peters asked if a motion could be made to give permission to Staff to do so under dire circumstances. Ms. Weldon asked who determined “dire circumstances”? Chairman Peters said he had enough faith in Staff to do that. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff would be changing the motion if the Staff changed the time condition. Ms. Weldon said that she would look into it and was not sure that Staff could do that. Chairman Peters said that some applications needed a time restraint where others did not. Eve Gieringer stated that with the opposition to the house on Rock Street, the neighbors are counting on the time constraint and could feel betrayed by Staff If it was extended without their notification. The applicant should be involved with the time condition and agree to such in the meeting. Commissioner Bob Wood asked that the Commission be consistent in applying time conditions. Ms. Weldon stated that different scales of projects would require different time limits. From 1-12-09 minutes: A discussion was held on the appropriateness of time limits with comments on small, medium, and large projects. It was discussed by the Commission to not have time limits on the Staff Recommendations or listed in the motion. It was discussed that the Commissioners could ask of the applicant, during the hearing, what the timetable was for the item. Page 10 of the report was discussed and the other time limits of other boards and commissions and building permits. Commissioner Wiedower asked that the Commission be friendly and work with the applicants on the time limits. The time limits do not affect the COA - the actual projects look and 26 of 34 materials. If a project drags on too long, Staff can put a Stop Work Order on them when their building permit runs out. After further discussion of the differing scales of projects, the Commission decided that the Staff should not list time limits in the staff report and that the Commission should not enforce time limits. The Commission can ask the applicant in the hearing a bout the timeline. A note can be made to obtain a building permit in the recommendation. From 7-9-12 minutes 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 of the scope of the COA renders it null and void. BTW, that extension has to go to the commission for approval. 27 of 34 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 certificat e 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. 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, 28 of 34 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. 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. 29 of 34 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 sense to her. She asked how many COA’s had been approved and not built. Mr. Minyard stated that he had not looked 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. 30 of 34 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. From 8-13-12 minutes: Time limits on COA An intern this summer worked on this spreadsheet and it will be presented to you at the September hearing. The Commission can decide in September if this will be a workshop issue or discuss it in the meeting. 31 of 34 From 9-10-12 minutes: There was a discussion on looking at time limits on COA’s at a work session or converting a meeting that does not have any items. From 1-14-13 minutes: Time Limits on COAs. Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, made a presentation on the ongoing topic of placing time limits on COAs. She referenced that Fredericksburg, Virginia and Opelika, Alabama, gives the applicant “x” amount of time to get a permit and then the permit gives them “x’ amount of time to finish it. She would suggest 6 months to start and one year to complete the project. Our time limits would be combined with the permit timelines. An additional six month could be granted for construction for cause. An action approved by a COA may or may not require a building permit, if not started within six months, the COA would expire since t did not commence. The building permit sets the time line. The COA is then tied to the building permit for its expiration. Below is the text from the memo from last year: 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 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. From 2-11-13 minutes: 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. From 5-13-13 minutes: Time Limits for COAs Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about the time limits for COAs. He stated that the guidelines have samples of COAs and instructions, if that changed what would happen to the graphics of the instructions. Mr. Minyard stated that the graphics would be updated with a new printing. Debra Weldon said that the Commission has not voted on the item, and that a vote needs to be had on such. She continued that the bylaws were the appropriate venue to implement a time limit on COAs. Staff said that it would be on the agenda in June 2013 to discuss the time limits questions and then to approve it in July. There was a discussion to approve the bylaws and the new guidelines at the same meeting in July. A discussion on the June agenda would be appropriate. 32 of 34 Email from 5/31/13 Debra Weldon: After closer inspection, it appears that the establishment of an expiration date for COA’s will need to be submitted first as an ordinance to amend section 23-115 of the Little Rock Code. It can then be incorporated into the bylaws by the amendment process and into the application for a COA. The commission’s guidance and formal recommendation are needed before an ordinance is submitted to the Board of Directors. Proposed language is attached for your review and, with your approval or changes, for consideration by the commission at their next meeting. At least one area needs clarification: If the COA is to remain valid as long as the building permit (or other permit) is valid – what do we do if more than one permit is required? For example, what if the applicant must obtain a building permit and a fence permit; the fence permit expires (but is no longer needed because the fence has been completed) but the building permit is still valid. Does the COA expire? Should we divide the COA into separate projects? Issue separate COA’s for each permit- related project? Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. (a) COA Requirement. No building or structure, including stone walls, f ences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. (b) COA Expiration. A certificate of appropriateness shall expire if all permits required for constructing or altering structures are not obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness. If all required permits are obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness, the certificate of appropriateness shall be valid as long as each permit remains valid. If a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures is not required, a certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for one year; and the project must be completed within that one- year period. A six-month extension of a certificate of appropriateness may be granted by the commission based on good cause beyond the control of the applicant. All applications for extension of a certificate of appropriateness must be submitted to the commission at least one (1) month prior to expiration of the certificate of appropriateness. From the CLR website pertaining to Building permits: 1. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $50,000 dollars or less and demolition permits shall expire one year from the date of issuance. Extensions of up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be granted for each permit. The request for extension must be in writing to the Building Codes Division and must show just cause. A fee of $30.00 shall be accessed for each ninety (90) day extension. 33 of 34 2. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $50,001 to $500,000 dollars or more shall expire two years from the date of issuance. Extensions of up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be granted for each permit. The request for extension must be in writing to the Building Codes Division and must show just cause. A fee of $50.00 shall be accessed for each ninety (90 day extension. 3. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $500,001 dollars or more shall expire three years from the date of issuance. Extensions of up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be granted for each permit. The request for extension must be in writing to the Building Codes Division and must show just cause. A fee of $70.00 shall be accessed for each ninety (90) day extension. 4. All permits shall become invalid if work authorized is not commenced within six (6) months of permit issue date, or if the work authorized is suspended or abandoned for a period of six (6) months after work is commenced. Before work can be resumed, a new permit must be obtained. The permit fee shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit, provided no changes have been made in the original plans and specifications for such work, and provided that suspensions or abandonment have not exceeded six (6) months. 5. A permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for a one-time extension, provided he can show good and satisfactory reason, and beyond his control the work cannot be commenced within the six (6) month period from the issue date. In order to renew work on a permit after it has expired, the permittee shall pay a fee in accordance with C(1).(2). Permittee shall pay a new, full permit fee in cases of change in contractor. COMMISSION ACTION: June 10, 2013 Chairman Chris Vanlandingham commented that the wording of the text was wordy and questioned if it could be shortened. Debra Weldon stated that it was the language for the ordinance and needed to be stated as such. After discussion, it was decided that the text of the guidelines and the text for the ordinance can be different. Commissioner Mark Brown suggested five years instead of 1 year to complete the project. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked why. He replied that with a 3 year permit and extensions now, it gave more time. Commissioner Ripley replied that as printed, it was a moving target on completeness with the extensions. Ms. Weldon stated that limiting time for completion could be conflicting with the building permits. There was a question on how many projects were out there. Brian Minyard stated that an intern had started on that chart but did not complete it and it was a mess. He could not answer with a definitive number. Chairman Vanlandingham commented that the commission makeup changes over time and some commissions are more lenient and some more strict when approving COAs. He also noted that things change and an open ended approval is against the idea of the commission. VI. V. Other Matters Enforcement issues Enforcement issues to be addressed by Staff are the signage at the Store on 6th Street, the Fence at 420 E 11th by Leonard Hollinger, and the deck at the Hostel. Mr. Minyard said that he would check into these. Certificates of Compliance Mr. Minyard stated that a spreadsheet was emailed to the commissioners last week. There have been no additional COCs issued since then. Citizen Communication There were no citizens present at this time. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:31 p.m. Attest: 34 of 34 Date Date V� , S . -�? 0 (�