HDC_07 08 20131
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being seven (7) in number.
Members Present: Julie Wiedower
Randy Ripley
Chris Vanlandingham
BJ Bowen
Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Ralph Wilcox
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedower to approve the minutes of June 10, 2013 with
the following corrections: Page 29, bottom paragraph, sense instead of since and change “she”
to “he”. The letterhead on page one needs to be fixed also. Commissioner Randy Ripley
seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 absent.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
2
DATE: July 8, 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
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. III a.
Location of Paul Laurence Dunbar School Neighborhood Historic District
3
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
4
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: This nomination was heard earlier this year before the HDC on
February 11, 2013. It was heard at the State Review Board meeting on
April 3, 2013 and was deferred to their August meeting. It is back before this Commission
because of edits to the text. These edits address the history of the survey and local advocates
that pushed for the creation of the district. These edits are on page 26 and 29 of the text near
the bottom of each page.
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
5
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
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. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He stated that three sentences had been
added to the report concerning the additional buildings used for the school and the origins of the
movement to lists the neighborhood on the national register. He read the sentences into the
record along with the footnotes from page 26 and 29.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked that all was the same except the three sentences. Mr.
Minyard confirmed that it was so along with the two footnotes. Ralph Wilcox did not have
anything to add.
Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked if it was the same, why was it back in front of the
commission again and why could it have not been voted on at that meeting? Mr. Minyard
responded that with our CLG agreement to review these items, it was felt by the CLG state
coordinator to be sure and cross the “t”s and dot the “i”s to bring it back to the commission in
accordance with our CLG commitment. We felt it would be safe and prudent to rehear the item.
Chairman Vanlandingham stated that he felt that these edits were not substantive and
questioned the time spent by this commission to rehear the item. Commissioner Toni Johnson
stated she was at the state review board meeting that day and agave a short synopsis as to why
it came back. There was a brief discussion of the previous meeting where this item was heard.
6
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to forward the nomination with a recommendation of
support to the State Review Board. Commissioner Johnson seconded and the motion passed
with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes.
7
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. III B.
DATE: July 8, 2013
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP
ADDRESS: 221 West 2nd Street
REQUEST: Nomination of the Southern Trust Building
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 221 West 2nd Street at the southeast corner of Center and
2nd Streets. The building’s legal description is ‘West 93 1/3 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 82,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs
has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures.” In it, sections are
titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation
in the Certified Local Government Program”,
“Process for Certification of Local
Governments”, “Process for monitoring
Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local
Governments Participation in the National
Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer
of funds to Certified Local Governments.”
In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the
Certified Local Government Program
subsection C Local Historic Preservation
Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the
Duties of local preservation commissions shall
include:
“Reviewing all proposed National
Registration nominations for properties
within the boundaries of the CLG’s
jurisdiction. When a commission
reviews a nomination or other action
that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a
specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the
commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.”
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
I. Location of Southern Trust Building
8
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the National Register Nomination of the Southern
Trust Building. This building is nominated under Criterion C.
Criterion C addresses the steel frame construction and what would later be referred to as
curtain wall construction of concrete and masonry. When constructed, this was the only
skyscraper and tallest building in Arkansas. The building exhibits influences of the Classical
revival style with its ornament of columns and decorative base and cornice. The windows are
the dominant features filling the spaces between the parallel and horizontal lines.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lace individual distinction.
Southern Trust Building Southern Trust Building (rear view)
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the windows had been replaced and if that compromised
the integrity of the building. Ralph Wilcox stated that “storefronts” change regularly and that last
year, the Donaghey Building was listed even though the first three floors had been modified.
9
Otherwise, the building is very much unchanged from its original appearance. Mr. Minyard read
from the nomination concerning the integrity of the first skyscraper in the city.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to support the nomination of the Southern Trust
building to the National Register. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the motion
passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the renovations were utilizing tax credits. Mr. Wilcox stated
yes.
10
DATE: August 12, 2013
APPLICANT: Parks and Recreation, Ron Ross
ADDRESS: 1201 Commerce
COA REQUEST: Deck
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1201 Commerce. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 6 and adjacent street
to east, Block 154, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
The survey states: “This craftsman style firehouse has
shallow roof slopes, multiple dormers, half timbering at
gables and multiple casement windows. The use was
changed when a new fire station was constructed. It was
built around 1917. It was operational as a fire station
until the mid-1960s.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This property has a “Conservation Easement” on the
exterior of the building that has been deeded to the State.
AHPP, through its Conservation Easement Coordinator,
monitors all improvements to the exterior of the building. Staff has been in contact with AHPP
and has attended a meeting with the Hostel representatives, Parks, City Finance Department,
and the State AHPP coordinators to work out what can be changed on the building.
This application is a result of an enforcement action. The construction of the deck was not
approved by the Commission at the March 12, 2012 hearing. The removal of the loading dock
in this location was approved.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
In August, 1999, permission was given to do roof repair to repair tornado damage.
On April 20, 2011, a Certificate of Compliance was given to repair the brackets and exposed
rafters on the building and some roofing repair and skylight with a Certificate of Compliance.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
II. Location of Project
11
On March 12, 2012, A Certificate of Appropriateness was given for window replacement,
masonry repair, addition of a fire safety door, addition of stucco to the building, signage and
lighting, fencing around the ac units, and removal of the loading dock. This COA did not include
the construction of the deck in question.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
From the March 2012 staff report:
Removal Of Dock And Addition Of Deck In The Proposal And Written Analysis Of The
Application Based Off Of Intent And Guidelines Section:
“This is a non-original loading dock and is believed to have been added when Parks and
Recreation had a commercial kitchen in the building. The dock is in bad repair and is a
safety hazard to the users because of lack of handrails and deteriorating wood.
The new deck is to be used by the hostel clientele. AHPP and HDC Staff are
encouraging a different design of the deck so that it is not visually connected or
physically connected to the building. NO handrail specifications have been provided as
the floor plan is still in review.
Staff is prepared to work with the applicant, Building codes, and the AHPP to govern
exact size and placement and to select handrails that will meet fire codes and is the
most sympathetic to the structure and site.
This is shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants
numbering system of page 11.”
During the discussion of the item, there were questions on the railing, design and if it was
needed at all; if it was to be stained or painted; and whether it was to be attached to the
building. There were statements on needing more information on the deck. Also discussed was
deferring part of the item or amending the application to remove part of the item. After
discussion,
“Chairman Vanlandingham told the applicant that if the Commission has issues with one
of the portions of the item, and it was denied, the applicant would have to come back to
the Commission with a substantially different application. The offered the opportunity to
amend the application. Mr. Hart amended his application to tear down the deck and
come back at a later date to get approval of the deck plan. He did want to keep the fire
doors in the application.”
The motion was as follows:
“Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as amended (removal
of deck construction but including deck demolition) with the understanding that the doors
be handled by Staff and AHPP. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion
passed with 5 ayes, 1 abstain (Hendrix) and 1 absent (Peters).”
Currently, the application is for the deck as built. The deck has been constructed of “Trex” or
similar product which is composed of reclaimed wood fiber and recycled plastic. The material
does not have as much tensile strength as wood; therefore it requires more support so that the
horizontal pieces do not sag. Therefore, this deck has more joists than a normal wood deck
would have although the joists are not visible. The part of the deck that is visible that is different
than a wood deck would be is the spacers between the handrail and the deck floor. This is
12
shown and labeled in the photo below. These spacers are different than the drawings submitted
for this project as the spacers are much more pronounced.
The height of the railing is also different than the submitted drawings. The posts are 48” above
the deck floor as specified, but the actual railing is at 36” instead of 42”. This makes the posts
extend an additional 12” above the top of the rails instead of the specified 6” as shown on the
drawings. This has a different look than the drawings specified.
The top of the deck is approximately 24” above the ground at the southeast corner. The deck is
not attached to the building as prescribed by AHPP under the façade easement. This deck is
visible from Commerce Street and Pulaski County Lane.
Built in seating has been completed on the east side only. The seating on the south side is yet
to be constructed.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
1. Reduce height of posts to be within 6” of top of railing.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, reported to the Commission that the notices had not been mailed to the
adjacent property owners, therefore the item could not be heard at this meeting. There was
nobody at the meeting to neither represent the application nor explain why the notices were not
mailed. Staff recommended that his item be deferred for one month.
Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked about standard enforcement procedures in the historic
district. There was a brief discussion concerning this. He stated the actions of the Hostel group
and City Parks does not show respect for the people in the district and does not help the City
enforce on others. Commissioner Wiedower agreed with his comment.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the applicant. Mr. Minyard stated that Parks has leased
the building to the hostel group but City Parks does all of the drawings for them. Ron Ross, a
city Parks employee, represents them in the meetings. The deferral does count against them.
There was a discussion on the deck and if it was attached to the building and if it violated the
conservation easement. Mr. Minyard stated that it was not attached to the building and did not
violate the conservation easement according to AHPP.
The item was deferred to the August 2013 meeting.
13
DATE: July 8, 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.
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. VI
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
14
(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
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 mor e 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.
16
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 repo rt, 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
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 catagories,
instead of the two we have now (Commercial and everything else.) If a building has changed
18
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 st ructures.
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
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 germ ane 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
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
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
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as submitted with any changes to the Guidelines
instructional pages 3-5 concerning time limits on COA’s to be addressed after the Historic
District Commission and the Board of Directors have acted upon any ordinance revision. With
this, all of the changes proposed in this document can be completed and the minor change to
the guidelines of the time change can be added later.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He stated that he made the corrections
that were mentioned in the last meeting. Staff recommended that the guidelines be approved
as they stand right now so they can be in use by the public. In the meantime, the bylaw
23
changes and time limits items will need to go to the Board of Directors which will take some
time. When those are passed, the Commission can go back and modify the small changes in
the Guidelines to reflect those changes.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that there was a misspelling of the word “plantings” on
page 57 and there was a “control icon” on page 88 which should not be there. Staff said he
would correct that.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the guidelines with the two changes noted
above and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Randy Ripley. There was a clarification
that this does not include the bylaws or time limits. The motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Mr. Minyard stated that the CLG agreement with the state requires that the Guidelines be
reviewed periodically and that the commission will be in good stead on that issue.
24
DATE: July 8, 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.
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
25
(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 COAs was 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 were 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
materials. If a project drags on too long, Staff can put a Stop Work Order on them when their
building permit runs out.
26
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 about 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.
In Conway, we do not specify a time limit within our true locally recognized historic district, the
Robinson Historic District.
27
In our Old Conway Historic Overlay District, we specify a 1-year time limit. However, the
overlay's time limit has proven to be impractical. I plan to amend our ordinance to allow at least
2 years, if not more in the overlay area.
City of Fort Smith
Our ordinance says the following: (h) A certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic
district Commission shall become void unless work pursuant to the certificate of
appropriateness is commenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance of the certificate of
appropriateness, unless the historic district Commission grants an extension to the certificate
based on abnormal weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the control of the
applicant which have been shown to delay the approved work.
Further, staff cannot administratively approve the extension.
Nationwide responses
Original Question:
All,
One of our HDC’s asked the following:
My Commission was asking in the last meeting about time limits on approved COA's. Our
attorney's opinion is that there is no time limit on execution of a COA. Will you poll/research the
other Commissions concerning this?
Please share your thoughts on how long your COA’s are valid. Also, can a COA get an
extension? Can staff administratively approve the extension?
Thank you,
Patricia
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Our COA's are good for 6 months by ordinance. They can be renewed for an additional 6
months as long as there are no changes in the proposed work. Staff can administratively
approve any extensions.
Wilmington, Delaware is the same as Kalamazoo.
Pueblo, Colorado
Our Commission wonders the same thing. One approach is that it’s unlimited; another idea is
that if it’s tied to a building permit it could expire when a building permit expires (180 days here),
but that’s difficult since our code is completely silent on when they expire. If the work conforms
to the code and they plan to do the exact same project I wouldn’t see why there would be too
much worry about it taking some time or going invalid.
Manitou Springs, Colorado,
Our COA’s (which we call MCAC’s – Material Change of Appearance Certifications) are valid for
one year. This is consistent with the expiration of zoning approvals. The reason for expiration
is that circumstances and regulations change and you don’t necessarily want someone
resurrecting a 10 year old approval when you might have adopted new guidelines, changed the
28
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.
City of Eustis, Florida
My City’s Ordinance specifies that work must commence within one year from the date the COA
is issued.
29
“Any certificate of appropriateness which has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this
section shall expire 12 months from the date of issuance if the work authorized is not
commenced within this period. Further, such certificate shall expire if the work authorized is not
completed within three years of the date of issuance, unless otherwise extended by the board.”
Indianapolis, Indiana
Our COAs are good for one year from the issuance date. Staff can administratively extend a
COA up to one more year – as long as the scope of work hasn’t changed. A filing fee of half the
original fee is charged for the extension (example: a COA issued with a filing fee of $50 would
cost $25 for an extension).
The only exception to this is when we issue COAs to resolve violations. Depending on the
agreement we reach with a violator to correct work done without approval, we may put a
different expiration date (six months, nine months, etc.) on the COA so the violation is
addressed sooner rather than later.
Riverside, California is similar in that are COA’s have a time limit but it is 12 months and we
indicate as such in our staff report as a Condition of Approval and reiterate the time limit in our
approval letter. If a time extension is requested, we generally approve it for 1 year and require
the case to go before the Board if originally heard by the Board. However if the case was
approved administratively we approve the COA’s administratively.
We also do not charge a fee for our COA’s or time extensions of COA’s.
Tacoma, Washington
The City of Tacoma land use permit procedures outlined in ordinance gives 18 months for a
Certificate of Approval/Appropriateness or the life of any permit granted during that 18 months;
extensions do not require additional application fee and are generally treated as an
administrative review unless the scope of the project has changed in any way, or there is
another reason to bring it to the full Commission for another review.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012
In response to a request by Commissioners in the June 2012 meeting, Staff polled both
statewide and national CLG’s to request times of expiration dates for COAs. The above is a
summary of the responses that were received.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if Staff was actively involved in gathering the responses. Mr.
Minyard responded that he polled the Commission in the statewide responses and the
nationwide responses came from the CLG coordinator at AHPP via the listserv.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that the Van Buren model makes since to her. He asked
how many COA’s had been approved and not built. Mr. Minyard stated that he had not looked
at every individual file to see if the work had been executed. Chairman Vanlandingham asked
how far back the electronic f iles go to. Mr. Minyard stated that the spreadsheet of activity (COA
and COC) goes back to 1981. The spreadsheet does not show whether the work was done or
not. Commissioner Wiedower stated that Staff has been modifying the spreadsheets for the last
few years to show what has been started and completed.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there was a difference in the time limits given to different
types of building permits. Debra Weldon stated she thought it was one year and two year.
There was a discussion if a COA could be issued and not trigger a building permit. Chairman
30
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 comm ented
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.
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.
31
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 tim e 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
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, 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.
(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
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 W eldon 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.
STAFF UPDATE: July 8, 2013
Staff completed the spreadsheet that combined all building permits in the MacArthur Park
district since January 1, 2000 with the list of all files of COA and COCs. On the spreadsheet, the
“Status” column describes the projects. Below is a chart of the categories used in the Status
column with the number of incidences each.
34
# of
items
% Status Clarifications and Assumptions
255 55.4% Completed Assumed if there is a permit following for prior to
year 2000
Some field verified, some assumed (interior
work, work not visible from street)
No enforcement action taken
Denied applications
5 1.0% Withdrew Applicant withdrew COA application
25 5.4% Replaced by an
later action
Usually a prior to year 2000 with another COA of
COC afterwards for similar action
20 4.3% Started as of
(date)
Based on field verification
19 4.1% Not Started as of
(date)
Based on field verification
120 26.0% Unknown Mostly items that are prior to year 2000 without
a building permit on that property
16 3.5% COA void – new
owner
If new owner is known, old COA void
Of these items, there are four that are obviously an issue with the time limits proposal. Listed
below are those with COAs for new buildings that have not built with the same owners. These
owners could come in for a building permit tomorrow for the construction of the new buildings.
They are shown in the PDF in the order below.
1023 Rock Street Outstanding COA for six unit apartment structure
from 12/4/1986 – Mr. Lamb
1011 McMath / 712 E 11th Street Outstanding COA for new building and porch
reconstruction at Bylites from 5/14/2007 – Mr.
Harrell
1410 Commerce Outstanding COA for new residence from
10/3/2005 – Ms. Colon
1020 Commerce / 420 e 11th Street Outstanding COA for demolition of ranch house
and construction of new house from 2/2/1989. –
Mr. Hollinger
Below is the remainder of the vacant lots in the district.
600 E 15th Street COA void – new owners
520 E 15th Street No COA pending
901-905 Cumberland No COA pending
1101 McMath No COA pending
614 Rock Street COA void – new owners
915-923 Rock Street COA void – new owners
1020 Rock Street COA void – new owners
1300-1324 Rock Street No COAs pending
1401-1423 Rock Street (includes 400 E 15th) No COAs pending
903-923 Scott No COA pending
1300-1324 Scott COA void – new owners
35
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of item with text as stated on the bottom of Page 9.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the percentages of projects completed, not completed,
withdrew, etc. as shown in the charts in the staff report. He also went over the four most
obvious issues as listed on the bottom of the previous page of projects that were approved but
not built. There was a brief discussion on the four items on the previous page.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked of the nineteen that were not started (referencing the first chart
on the previous page) how many were over one year old. Mr. Minyard stated that he believed it
was a majority of them.
Commissioner Wiedower asked the Commissioners what they thought about the verbiage that
was presented. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if this could interfere with anything (different
permits on same site). Ms. Weldon replied that the only permit that would be separate would be
a miscellaneous permit. There is a building permit issued for the project, and separate
electrical, plumbing, hvac, permits that are for those items. There is also a foundation only
permit. All of those are intertwined. The building permit has to be inspected last to get the
Certificate of Occupancy. The way it is written, you are waiting on the main building permit for
the Certificate of Occupancy to be signed. The sign permits are totally separate from those.
Miscellaneous permits are for fences, walls and swimming pools. There was a discussion on
whether the text would work for a fence only miscellaneous permit, since there is not a final
inspection for fences. It was decided that it would work. A fence can be included in the building
permit but may be separate.
Sign permits are for five years and are ongoing for the lifetime of the sign.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked Commissioner Brown if this text would have interfered with
any of his projects, since he does work downtown. Mark Brown replied no but he has never
built anything from scratch. He says that it would not have interfered with any of his remodels.
Commissioner Randy Ripley commented that for the average homeowner, that is doing the
work piecemeal, they may be affected by this change. But the businessman, where time equals
money, will not likely be affected.
Commissioner Wiedower stated the reason is to not have to keep track of outdated COA’s (10
or 15 years’ worth). Material and technology changes occur during that time frame which could
affect the COA and the appearance of the project. If you have not pulled a permit in one years’
time, you would have to start all over again. Chairman Vanlandingham stated that Staff is
understaffed and this could save time and give more control over what is done.
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, said that if a permit was not required, the project
should be small and be able to be done in one year. Ms. Weldon asked if there should be a
provision for an extension. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if this Commission needed to hear
a six month extension. He was not thinking so. He commented that the rules needed to be
clear for the applicants.
Commissioner Toni Johnson suggested two years with no extension. Materials and technology
would not have changed so much in that time period. There was a discussion of 2 years on
permitted actions, 2 years on non-permitted actions and no extensions on either. Mr. Minyard
36
stated that most other CLGs have provisions for an extension, either by Staff or Commission
action. He continued that building permits can get an extension with an additional fee. There
was a discussion on why the Commission does not have a fee.
Commissioner Wiedower said that if we went with a longer period with no extensions, it would
cut down on the text. Mr. Minyard stated that if you go to a two year no extension, there needs
to be text to say there is no extension. An extension will make the Commission appear to be
more friendly and willing to work with the citizens. Staff will notify COA applicants before the
expiration period via a letter mailed to them. Staff commented that he would probably do a sixty
day notice. More discussion was held about the two year no extension option.
There was a discussion on whether a person did not execute the work as described in the COA
and if these time limits would affect that. Mr. Minyard said that it was really two issues,
enforcement versus the time limits and that one did not cancel out the other.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked how to relate this to the people living in district and how to
make it beneficial to the average guy. Commissioner Wiedower asked from a public relations
standpoint, which would gain more favor from the citizens. She said that she did not have a
strong feeling one way or the other.
Commissioner Johnson said that if I knew I had 2 years, it would be on me, if I had not done it.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if the Commission wanted Staff to rewrite it for the two year or
vote on it as is tonight. Mr. Minyard said that an extension gives an out, a work around, for the
citizens.
Chairman Vanlandingham opened up the floor for a motion to approve as written.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve as written. Commissioner BJ Bowen
seconded and the motion was approved 7 ayes and 0 noes via voice vote. The voice vote was
requested by the Chair.
III. Other Matters
Enforcement issues
• 13th and Scott for signage
• 314 E 6th Street on signage
• 902 Cumberland for signage
0 420 E 11th for fencing
These issues should be resolved or be on an upcoming agenda for you to review.
Certificate of Compliance
One Certificate of Compliance was issued for 908 Scott Street for interior renovations and rotten
wood and trim replacement.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present at this time.
IV. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:04 p.m.
Attest:
ChaiF ,
Secretary/Staff
37
Date
C17 - 13
Date