Loading...
HDC_12 11 2017Page 1 of 28 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 11, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair Dick Kelley Vice Chair Ted Holder Jeremiah Russell Dale Pekar Amber Jones Members Absent: Lauren Frederick Robert Hodge City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Stephan McAteer Karen Fetzer Reginald Wright Denise Arnett Patricia Blick Brian Minyard, Staff, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. Both applicants verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearings tonight. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to approve the November 13, 2017 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Brian Minyard, Staff, noted for the record that the New Certificates of Appropriateness were erroneously listed under the Deferred items. Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 28 DATE: December 11, 2017 APPLICANT: Karen A. Fetzer, Rotary Club of Little Rock ADDRESS: 621 E Capitol Avenue COA REQUEST: Sign PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 621 E Capitol Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot E100' OF Lots 11 & 12 and the N15’ of the E100’ of Lot 10, STEVENSONS Block, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built c 1978. The 2006 survey form states: “brick veneer installed after original construction. Iron bars on windows.” It is considered a "Non- Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a modification to the Sign. The current sign will have a printed metal plate affixed to both sides of the sign. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 10, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to Howard Williams, Contracting and Licensing Board for the expansion of the existing structure for office space and storage. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is to cover the existing text and graphics on both sides of the sign with a printed metal sheet. The existing frame, logo, and lettering is raised about one-half inch. The metal sheet will cover the entirety of the stucco finished area, including the frame. It will be a matte finish 3mm thick sheet of metal. The “stucco” finish will be visible on the top of the sign and the DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 3 of 28 edge of the sign that faces Capitol Avenue. No changes are proposed to the brick or lighting of the sign. On page 63 of the Guidelines, it states that freestanding signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish. This matte finish on the metal would be in conformance with the Guidelines. Nothing else on the sign will change. See excerpts of Guidelines at the end of this report. 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. COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. It was noted that the QQA advocacy group had asked for a copy of the application. Karen Fetzer, Executive Director of Rotary Club of Little Rock, noted that with their 400 members, they are the largest and oldest civic institution in the city. They have started leasing Existing sign looking west Existing raised letters and frame on sign Proposed sign graphics Contributing and Non-contributing map graphics Page 4 of 28 space at 621 E Capitol Avenue and are the only occupants of the building. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked how the new sign will be attached. Ms. Fetzer stated she was not sure, but it would be permanent and not reversible. Chair Dick Kelley commented on the raised border and a discussion followed on what size and where the sign was to be attached. Mr. Minyard stated that he has spoken with the sign company and discussed the raised letters on the existing sign. The quote does not say whether the sign will be glued, screwed, or how it will be attached. The sign will be a sheet of metal that will cover the raised border and the current lettering. Commissioner Russell asked that if it is permanent, why not make something more permanent. Ms. Fetzer responded it was for cost reasons. Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated that the QQA managed Curran Hall and they are located next door. This plan was shared with the advocacy committee and there was no objection and they would endorse it as submitted. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve as submitted and Commissioner Amber Jones seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 5 of 28 DATE: December 11, 2017 APPLICANT: Reginald Wright ADDRESS: 1301 Scott COA REQUEST: Garage and Deck PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1301 Scott. The property’s legal description is “Lots 1, 2, and the north half of 3, Block 21, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built c. 1887. The 2006 survey form states: “Original Queen Anne style structure with turrets, roof decoration and window designs typical of this style. Several Craftsman additions include porch and large multi-windowed addition on south. Built by Rozelle, a building contractor. It was extensively remodeled in 1919-1920 by J. R. Smallwood. Changes in renovation included porch remodel, attic conversion to 2nd floor, added sleeping porches & breakfast room.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the installation of a Garage and Deck. The garage will be located on the northeast corner of the lot with alley access and the deck will be on the southeast corner of the house. This structure is to be used as a single family residence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 8, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to John Emerson for on-site parking, fencing and bike racks. (The building was used for offices at the time.) On May 6, 2008, a COC was approved and issued to Taibi Kahler to remove inappropriate roof structure and repair flat roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. Location of Project Page 6 of 28 Existing north west corner of house looking east 1978 Survey photo Existing east elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is in the area of dual protection between the CZDC and the HDC and is required to be heard by the Capitol Zoning District Commission. It is placed on the December 21, 2017 CZDC hearing. The CZDC will have the final vote on this project at that time. This property is also subject to a Conservation Easement held by AHPP. See letter of approval at the end of this report. The application is for the construction of a detached garage at the northeast corner of the property at the alley shown in the upper right of the graphic to the right. Attached to the garage is a lattice screen wall to the south. The other part of the Site Plan Page 7 of 28 application is for a deck to be constructed under a second floor living space at the southeast corner of the house shown in the lower right of the graphic on the previous page. Enclosing the patio and wood deck will be a new wood fence. AC condensing units will be relocated to the alley side of the house. Garage Addition 13th Street Proposed Elevation Plan Page 8 of 28 See more graphics at the end of this report. The garage addition will be reviewed using the Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings on pages 31-40 in the December 2016 Guidelines. Refer to Guidelines for specifics. Excerpts of the Guidelines are attached to the end of this report. Siting The Garage is proposed to be placed on the alley property line and 3’ off the Scott Street property line. With this house originally sited so far back on the lot, there is not ample room to adhere to the prevailing side yard setbacks of the area of influence neither to move the garage over towards the center of the block nor to match the existing house setback of approximately 20 feet. Height The garage will feature storage in the attic with a pull down stair in a story and a half design. The garage measures approximately 21’ tall from the ground to the ridgeline of the structure. This is less than the height of the house. On the 13th Street elevation, the house is ghosted in to the right of the drawing. Proportion The proposed garage does relate well to the house. The overall height is subordinate to the main house and the numbers of window and door openings are similar in number and vertical nature. Rhythm The placements of the windows are regular and harmonious with the main house. The street view of the garage roof repeats pitches of the main house and is varied enough to relate to the house but not compete with the house’s turrets and complicated roof form. Scale The scale of the garage is appropriate to the main house. Massing The massing of the garage is appropriate to the main house. Entrance Area The garage doors will face the alley and there will be three entry doors, one on the north façade and two on the south. The entry door areas are more utilitarian, without porches which could reinforce the nature of the building, a garage. The entry door that faces 13th Street should be raised to reflect it entering at the floor level of the garage. Raising it would make it more in line with the top of the adjacent windows. Wall Areas The existing house has various materials; painted brick on the first floor, cedar shake shingles as siding on the second floor and vertical trim over what appears to be stucco on parts of the second floor addition. The siding will be Hardie Panel siding with vertical trim pieces painted to match the existing house. The garage will have 1 over 1 double hung wood windows on the 13th and Scott Street facades. The windows will be Jeld Wen wood aluminum clad windows that are 1/1. Window trim will be painted to match existing. Page 9 of 28 The entry doors will be six panel steel insulated doors, one of which will be visible from the 13th Street side. Part of the garage will be visible from Scott Street. Connecting the house to the garage will be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the window trim. Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard as well as the alley. The doors and windows are arranged vertically and symmetrically within the wall area. The first and second floors are easily discernable on the 13th Street elevation. The light fixtures will be Hampton Bay 7072 wall mounted sconces in bronze finish as shown on the right. Roof Area Roof shingle will match the existing house and the roof pitch will be 12/12. The existing shingles are a novelty architectural shingle. Façade With this being an accessory structure, the façade or the front of the building, is not as evident at with other structures. The 13th Street side will have the most impact on the street while the Scott Street side is removed from the street and is partially hid by vegetation. The 13th Street side has the appearance of an accessory structure, possible with useable space above which is common in the area. The revised drawings show vertical (flush) panel Hardie siding, painted to match existing house. The cover letter states a different product. This will need to be clarified by the applicant at the meeting. Detailing The detailing of the building more closely matches the Craftsman period of the building instead of the Queen Anne period. A horizontal belt board circumscribes the building at the base and at the second floor level. Site Features Connecting the house to the garage will be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the window trim. Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard as well as the alley. The gates are shown to blend into the fence. The handicap ramp that is currently on the northeast side of the house will be removed and new steps will be constructed to the existing door. See photo on page 2 and graphic on page 10. A concrete patio will be poured between the house and the garage but will not be visible from the street. Deck Addition The deck addition will be reviewed using the Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions on pages 27-29 in the December 2016 Guidelines. The deck is proposed to be added to an area under a second floor living area. This area currently houses the four air conditioner condensing units. These will be moved to the east side of the house along the alley. The proposed deck will be a wood deck with steps down to a new concrete or concrete paver patio. The deck may not be visible from Scott Street, but is included in this analysis. The wood fence to be installed along the alley way will be visible. It is to be a lattice fence with detail shown on the previous page. Wall sconce Page 10 of 28 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Approval of CZDC. 3. Removal of any business signage on the property. This does not include identification signage of historic name and construction date of house. 4. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dale Pekar had questions about the drawings. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant should be able to answer those questions for him. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked if this application was going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Minyard said that it was not going to the BOA. It wa s going to Capitol Zoning Commission because it was in the overlap area where both commissions protect property. Mr. Reginald Wright, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Pekar stated that there was a lot of horizontal siding in the neighborhood but this has a vertical aspect. One drawing notes this as a flush panel. He said that some flush panels are non-descript and did not match the neighborhood. Mr. Wright said that they were trying to match the house and they chose the area of a second floor addition to not compete with the Queen Anne style. Commissioner Pekar commented on the board at the bottom of the windows and felt that the belt board was too high in relation to the bottom of the windows. He also asked if the masonry at the bottom was faux brick. Mr. Wright said it was the masonry type. He continued that it sits three feet from the sidewalk. They were trying to fit it in the space. The question arose whether to have a two or three garage. The Garage doors will be steel insulated garage doors. Fence Detail Page 11 of 28 Mr. Wright clarified the client was downsizing and would like to have the cars inside a garage. Once the garage was detached, and the space between it and the house created a seating area courtyard. Commissioner Pekar stated that the garage should blend in as well as possible to protect the area. Commissioner Russell said he would echo Commissioner Pekar’s viewpoint on the siding. Being a corner lot, the house has two front doors; the main elevation as well as the 13th Street side. He continued that the siding is not compatible. He commented on the house at 1300 Cumberland and both had to respect the side yard setbacks along 13th Street. Vertical board and batten would be appropriate, but a flush siding is not. True board and batten would be even better. He did have a small issue with the height. He continued that if the man doors were lost and part of the façade was pushed back, it would be better. He asked about the details on the deck. Mr. Wright stated that he would provide details on the deck. It will be a typical construction with a three foot railing and no intricate details. On the siding, he referenced Wali Caradine’s detached garage that he thinks butts up to the property line. That is a two story garage building instead of this one and one half story garage. Chair Dick Kelley stated that he did not have any heartburn over the three foot setback. 13th Street is a low traffic street. The layout is more convenient to use the side entrances from the garage. Vice Chair Ted Holder asked about the back door to the house. There was a discussion on where the back door was. The back door is on the east side of the house where the current handicap ramp is and faces north. Vice Chair Holder asked about any problem with raising the door on the 13th Street side of the garage. Mr. Wright stated that is was an oversight and it would be raised to be more in line with the tops of the windows. Commissioner Pekar commented on the gate to the front lawn on the west side. Vice Chair Holder held up the plan view and there was a discussion on the doors to the garage and the gates from the patio. Vice Chair Holder stated that he did not have heartburn over the placement of the garage but did over the siding. Chair Kelley asked what siding he wanted. Vice Chair Holder echoed Commissioner Russell’s preference for true board and batten. Vice Chair Holder said that it should not look exactly like but different and that board and batten blends. Commissioner Pekar stated that board and batten was conventional on garages but the 13th Street side looked more like a house instead of an accessory building. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that there was a lot of texture on the house and adding board and batten would be adding yet another texture. She would rather see shiplap or horizontal siding. Vice Chair Holder stated that he was not married to one or the other. Mr. Wright stated that it was no problem to relook at the siding and that it was hard for the client to decide. He asked how many materials were too many materials on the site. Page 12 of 28 Commissioner Pekar asked what the probability of a two instead of a three car garage would be. Mr. Wright again referenced the Caradine garage. He said that cars parked outside would be more an eyesore than a three car garage. Commissioner Russell stated that providing some relief to the 13th Street side would be beneficial. The things that are the most important to this application are the siting, height and proportion (square and squat), the rhythm (large square openings), and overall mass of low horizontal façade. He thinks there is a way to resolve issues through design. He said that he does not think it is an appropriate addition. Mr. Wright stated that the client did not want a roof that was reminiscent of a low ranch style design. He continued that the height of the garage is appropriate to the house and the pitches are in keeping with the house. Commissioner Russell spoke of detailing of the building and looking more carefully at the stucco and cedar shake. In reference to the Caradine garage, Commissioner Jones added that each property is different and what works on that property may not work elsewhere. She added that sometimes less is more. Vice Chair Holder said that the siting has a lot to do with the use of the door to the house that faces 13th Street. There was a discussion on the setbacks along 13th Street. Commissioner Russell viewed a street view of the Caradine garage and he stated that it was not a fair comparison between the two. Mr. Wright spoke of the Caradine garage in reference to placement on the lot. Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that this seemed like an amendment to the application and suggested the opportunity to defer the application. Mr. Wright requested a deferral to the next agenda. Commissioner Jones commented on the property to the east using alley for parking. There was a discussion and it was stated that there is probably ten feet of right of way in addition to the three feet setback. Vice Chair Holder said that if it is to be deferred by the commission, the applicant should be told what the concerns are. Commissioner Russell has done that to some extent as well as Commissioner Pekar. Vice Chair Holder mentioned the siting as well as the siding. Ms. Weldon stated that they could defer for more information but they cannot require the applicant to change the design. If the applicant, after hearing the comments, wanted to change the design, it would be a deferral by the applicant. Mr. Minyard agreed that this would be a deferral by the applicant. There was a discussion of the types of deferrals and waving the bylaws. It was noted that if the applicant requested the deferral, the applicant would send out the notices. Vice Chair Holder made a motion to waive the bylaws for a deferral requiring a 5 day notice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 no (Russell) with a simple majority required. Page 13 of 28 Commissioner Pekar made a motion to defer to the January 2018 meeting and Vice Chair Holder seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 14 of 28 Clarification of the Area of Influence – Arsenal Building - MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History The City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department has filed a Certificate of Appropriateness for storm windows to be installed on the Arsenal Building for the January 2018 agenda. In the state legislation, it mandates that the HDC set the Area of Influence for sending legal notices to surrounding properties. Currently the area of influence is stated to be all properties within 150 feet plus any additional properties that are within the same block as the applicant that are not already being notified. If all of the properties were notified within 150 feet as usual, at least 30 properties will be notified as shown on the sketch to the right with bold black outlines, plus the Arkansas Highway Dept. which is not highlighted. 150’ from the project would be the shaded area immediately surrounding the building itself. A star symbol has been placed on the building for identification purposes. The Commission has set a different area of influence at least four times in the past; all for users that are located in the park. In September 2009, the Commission set a lesser standard for a marker that was placed in the parade grounds to the south of the Arsenal Building. That area of influence was set at sixteen properties on three sides of the park plus three users in the park itself (Arkansas Arts Center, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, and the Hostel.) In September 2009, the Commission set a lesser standard for the front lawn renovations. That area of influence was set at 100’ from the project area which notified about twenty properties on 9th Street, north of 10th Street on both Commerce and McMath and the three users in the park. In June 2008, the Commission set a lesser standard for signage and a screen around the ac units at the northeast corner of the Arkansas Arts Center building. That area of influence was set at 150’ from the project area which notified about nine properties on 9th, Commerce and McMath and the three users in the park. The first time that Staff is aware of a lesser standard being set was in September 2006 for the renovation of the fountain in front of the Arsenal Page 15 of 28 Building. The area was set at 150’ from the project which meant that two users in the park were notified. It was required that two signs be posted on the site for passersby. The building sits approximately 380’ from the 9th Street right-of-way (r.o.w.), 500’ from McMath r.o.w., and 540’ from the Commerce Street r.o.w. The Arkansas Arts Center building prohibits view of the building from most of Commerce Street. If the area was set only at 150’ of the project, only the Arkansas Arts Center would be notified. Modifications to buildings that are visible from a public street must have file for a COA which includes notification of property owners in the area. However, notifying all property owners surrounding the entirety of the park may be overkill in in this application. The proper use of notification signs is a must. This will require a vote of the commission to set the boundary of the area of influence. COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017 Commissioner Dale Pekar stated that this was the most important building in the district and did not want to shortchange the notification for the project. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell agreed. Commissioner Russell made a motion to leave the existing 150’ notifications in place and Commissioner Pekar seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 16 of 28 DATE: December 11, 2017 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide REQUEST: Committee for preapplication meeting During one of the Preservation Implementation Committee meetings, there was discussion of the possibility of a preapplication meeting between applicants, staff, and commission members for infill buildings. Staff would like to present this item to the full commission for discussion and possible implementation. Staff has spoken with Catherine Barrier, AHPP CLG coordinator, and she is unsure if any other Arkansas CLG practices this mandatory preapplication meeting. She did mention that Russellville has started along this path, but has not completed it. A call was made to Kurt Jones, Staff for Russellville CLG, and they have not implemented anything thus far. Also, see QQA letter attached to the end of this item. The purpose of the pre-application meeting would be to have a public meeting (meaning that the press is alerted that a meeting will be held with two or more commissioners present) with the applicants, the applicant’s architects, designers, commission members, and staff to discuss upcoming projects on a conceptual level or preliminary design level. This has the possibilities of several positives. 1) The applicant can save design money and time by discerning what aspect of the project is of concern to the commissioners, 2) This can save multiple hearings on the same project that are required by edits and redraws, and 3) This can build goodwill between the commission and the public by listening and working with the applicants in an informal environment. The negative of this would be 1) the tendency of commissioners to design the project for the applicants, and 2) Some applicant may not be ready for their project to go public at the time of the preapplication meeting. There are multiple factors to consider on how this would work. Mandatory or voluntary: The original discussion was mandatory for all infill buildings. Discussions could be beneficial for all applicants, rehab or infill. What if they were individually listed on national register, have conservation easements, are contributing versus non- contributing? DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. VII C. Page 17 of 28 Size of project: Do major additions to structures in the district require a pre-application meeting? What would be the threshold of the addition size? A percentage increase or a minimum of ‘x’ square feet or whichever is smaller? Time of meeting: Some commissions have met immediately before or after the regular hearing. This could stretch out the meeting at the end of the work day, but would limit the meetings to once a month. With the deadline for filing the Friday before the hearing, Applicants may be tempted to try to file the next morning and ask for exemptions to the deadline. A pre- application meeting after the legal ad was published and in the middle of the cycle, could give the applicant time to finish or revise drawings in time for the normal filing deadline. Location of meeting: Planning Commission has subdivision meetings in the boardroom with the addition of tables on the floor of the boardroom which gives you more of a workgroup environment. Another option would be to have it in the Planning Department conference room which holds a dozen people. How many commissioners: The PIC (Preservation Implementation Committee) has three of the seven commissioners which is less than a quorum. The Planning Commission has 2 committees, the Subdivision and the Plans committee, which are five members out of an eleven member commission. Again, this is one less than a quorum. These meetings would be required to have notification of the press because there would be two or more commissioners present. Discussions in the PIC meetings focused on the members consisting of the Chair, the QQA representative and the architect. Any comments made in the pre application meetings would be considered non-binding. Any applicant may request a pre-application meeting. The HDC Bylaws state under Article III Officers 1 c: c. The Chair shall present to the Commission for its approval the names of all persons appointed to committees established by the Commission. The Chair shall designate one (1) member of such committee to serve as the committee Chair. The Little Rock Planning commission mandates preapplication conferences on Planned Zoning districts and plats over ten acres. These are with Staff only. The following text describes other committees and how they are structured. The Planning Commission Bylaws describe Standing Committees and their role. A. Standing Committees - Standing Committees may be created by the Planning Commission and charged with such duties as the Commission deems necessary or desirable. Such Committees shall be composed of two or more Commissioners, but less than a quorum of the full Commission, and shall hold membership for one year or until succeeded. 1. The Subdivision Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only. The Committee shall act as a review body for all conditional use, site plan and planned zoning development issues in Page 18 of 28 addition to platting matters. 2. The Plans Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only. The Plans Committee shall act as a review body for all master plan elements, ordinance amendments and other project activities as may occur from time to time as referred by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: October 9, 2017 Staff recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and any other so discovered. COMMISSION ACTION: October 9, 2017 Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item to the Commission. He clarified that this was a product of the guidelines revision, not the Preservation Implementation meetings. He added an update on different cities in Arkansas and what they do. Russellville has not implemented these meetings. Sandra Smith in North Little Rock stated that their attorney has encouraged them to have these meetings, but no process has been formalized. Fort Smith has a set up similar to Little Rock. They have other pre-application meetings for zoning and subdivision items. They are set up by ordinance. They encourage meeting for HDC but there is not a formalized process. Mr. Minyard spoke to the time of the meeting whether it is at the end of the public hearing or a different time and place. Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects, said that a pre-application meeting would be a good thing to take a pulse on what could be or would be approved. He thinks that they could get to a rough design quicker and spend less time on schematic design. He said that it would be a benefit to design professionals and that a developer may save design dollars. James Sullivan, AMR Architects, supports the idea of meetings to make adjustments and can work towards solutions with more input from the Commission. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked Mr. Barksdale if he looked at the guidelines and the response was yes. Commissioner Russell asked if they found the new guidelines more helpful. Mr. Barksdale said that they would be more helpful. Ambiguities will always be there, but they are better than the old ones. Commissioner Russell said that they did not want to design by committee and beholden to the whims of the opinion. Mr. Barksdale stated that unless you have a strict code like Seaside, Florida, the guidelines are unable to come up with all of the possibilities that could appear. He knows that the conversations would be non-binding and there could be some comfort level or change directions on the design. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked him if he thought it should be mandatory or voluntary. Mr. Barksdale said that he would prefer voluntary but may not want to wait for filing deadlines. Commissioner Kelley said that the 900 Scott Street apartments are looking good. Vice Chair Ted Holder thought that it would be beneficial to have the meeting mandatory for larger scale projects. He thought it was a good idea overall, and could lessen anxiety. He asked Staff whether this would be part of the commission or the whole m embership of the Page 19 of 28 commission. Mr. Minyard responded that the thought was that it would be three members of the commission. Three cannot be a quorum. Commissioner Amber Jones commented that Capitol Zoning District has three meetings on each item with the advisory committees. She said that it might be better to make it voluntary, but it may be better for first time applicants to go through the process. They do not know what they do not know. She can see both sides of the argument. Commissioner Russell related his experience in working with Jennifer Carmen on the porch renovations on Scott Street. He would encourage it for any applicant. He recommended going through the guidelines with the applicants. He mentioned 1014 Rock Street with the roof changes and that it could have reduced the number of meetings for them. Commissioner Pekar commented that if the committee liked it and then the whole commission voted it down, would it be better to have the whole commission present at the pre-application meeting. Chair Kelley said with a committee, it would be non-binding. Commissioner Russell added that it would be for the commissioners on the committee to say that they had concerns if it fit the guidelines, not if they would vote for it or not. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if it could delay projects. Vice Chair Holder said that it depended on how it was set up. Capitol Zoning committees record whether they recommend or not. This committee will not make recommendations. Commissioner Russell stated they the committee could make recommendations based on the guidelines, scale, proportion, etc. The comments would be non-binding and the committee would not be casting a vote on the item. Vice Chair Holder suggested they only speak of the guidelines, whether they meet them or not. Commissioner Russell asked if we had minutes of the Pre-application meeting, would those become part of the record. Chair Kelley asked for a motion on the item. Commissioner Russell made a motion for the Commission to explore creating a committee for the purpose of pre-application meetings. Commissioner Pekar seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Frederick). Chair Kelley spoke of how this topic would be discussed and when. Would it be working sessions like the guidelines or do we do it in a public hearing. Mr. Minyard said that it could stay at the bottom of the agenda until it is ready to present to legal for their analysis. Or, they could go down the list and continue to discuss it tonight. The commission will need to come up with some definite answers and language on each of those topics plus others. The conversations continued with Commissioner Russell suggesting that it be kept as part of the regular agenda but not have any citizen comment on the items, to maybe close the public hearing portion and then have the discussion afterwards. He asked if it would be part of the minutes if it was held after the meeting. Ms. Weldon said that it would be possible to close the public hearing and have the discussion afterwards but the discussions would be included in the minutes. Commissioner Russell advocated that the meetings be after the regular hearing and the committee of three stay afterwards to have the pre-application meeting. Commissioner Jones commented that if the regular agenda was long, what would happen to the pre-application meeting items and would they be deferred to the next month. Page 20 of 28 Mr. Minyard said that it depended on the timing of the meeting. The filing deadline for the next hearing is the Friday before. The applicants will need time to revise their drawings before the filing deadline. The question is whether they want the preapplication meeting a full month before the filing deadline or if they want it two or three weeks before. Commissioner Russell suggested having at least two weeks to revise the drawings before the filing deadline. Vice Chair Holder suggested that it be held somewhere else and not be such a formal meeting. Commissioner Jones asked in the last two years would have benefitted from a pre-application meeting. Commissioner Russell responded several. She asked Mr. Barksdale if it would have been beneficial and if he would have attended a pre-application meeting. He responded yes to both. Mr. Sullivan said that on small jobs, you would need to stress benefits of coming to the meeting or make it mandatory in some instances. Vice Chair said that some small scale applications would have benefited from a pre-application meeting. Chair Kelley asked about the notification of property owners for a pre-application meeting. Mr. Minyard noted that the press would need to be notified but that no notification of neighbors would be necessary at that time. The meeting dates could be set in the calendar that was adopted at the end of the year. A public hearing would be advertised on the city website but would not require notice of property owners in the area of influence. Ms. Weldon said that she would look into if the applicants would have to send out two sets of certified mail. She will also look at other issues before the next meeting. Mr. Minyard added that the pre-application meeting, by definition, would be before any application would be filed which could make a difference on what Ms. Weldon has to research. Ms. Weldon asked what would be different in what Staff has done before in meeting with the applicants before filing. Mr. Minyard said that Staff would continue to do that, but sometimes the Commission has voted differently than what Staff anticipated. The final vote is still at the public hearing. The pre-application meeting gives more voices to the applicant instead of just Staff. Commissioner Russell suggested that some would be mandatory while some, maybe not visible from the street, would not be mandatory. He continued that in Savannah Georgia, the process is three months. The first month is design only, the second month is materials review, and the third month is the public hearing. The applicants are not allowed to jump ahead in the discussion by discussing materials in the first meeting, etc. Their three meetings are mandatory. Staff was asked to get a copy of Annapolis’s procedures. Vice Chair Holder said that there were open questions on the timeline of meetings. Chair Kelley asked Debra Weldon to come back to the commission with the City Attorney’s thoughts on this, encouraged commissioners to put together some thoughts on the subject and for Staff to provide some examples. Discussion will continue next month. UPDATE: November 13, 2017 After the last meeting, the following list of topics to discuss was generated: Mandatory or voluntary:  Infill Page 21 of 28  Additions  Individually listed  Conservation easements from AHPP  Contributing or non-contributing  Visible from the street Size of project:  Small  Large  Percentage of increase of square footage or footprint Time and date of meeting:  At regular hearing  In the middle of the cycle Location of meeting:  Board Room  Planning Conference Room How many commissioners:  3  7 Composition of Committee:  Chair  Architect  QQA Representative  Property owner  Property owner resident  NRD representative  NRD representative  Citizens for open meetings Language of meeting synopsis:  Non-binding  Becomes part of minutes  Disclaimers Composition of Discussion:  What not to discuss  Which design factors to discuss  Checklist for applicants Submittals:  What is too little information  What is too much information  Format Page 22 of 28 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: November 13, 2017 Staff recommends to get input from the City Attorney’s office before going too far in the discussion of this item. Working with that guidance from the City Attorney’s office, Staff recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and any other so discovered. COMMISSION ACTION: November 13, 2017 Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated the following: The Commission can establish a Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC cannot approve or deny any projects. The committee meetings are subject FOIA. It must maintain documents and are subject to disclosure. The meetings will not be public hearings; there will not be any public input even though the public is allowed to attend. The DRC will supplement information to the Commission based on the DRC recommendation. She mentioned the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee which determines what is and in not in compliance with the requirements for subdivisions based on law is rather cut and dry. The HDC determines whether a project is appropriate or not based on guidelines. The DRC will not have that checklist to review point by point. It will be difficult for the DRC committee members to give guidance without saying it the DRC approves of the design. Ms. Weldon continued to avoid polling of the commissioners; a clear statement in writing will need to provide disclaimers. She read some proposed language: “With respect to a proposed construction project in the Historic District, the final decision of each commission member as t o that project’s appropriateness must be based upon review of a formal application and consideration of public input concerning that application. Therefore the role of the DRC is to explain and answer questions about the guidelines as they apply to the proposed project. Any indication by DRC members stating that the design is appropriate should be considered subject to change after the required public hearing before the full commission.” This would need to be read at the beginning of the meetings. The objective would be to help the applicants understand the guidelines and provide guidance on applying the guidelines to their project. Chair Kelley spoke of reviewing very preliminary plans or presentation. They should not state recommendations or if something should be approved or not. The DRC would be interpreting the guidelines for them and this should not become design by committee. The applicants would need to provide some basic design concepts for review. He continued that the DRC should keep your comments general. Chair Kelley also stated that they need a statement of intent or purpose of what the Design Review DRC would do for them, maybe incorporate language from the QQA letter. Mr. Minyard stated that it would be very important for the Commission to have that ‘Statement of Purpose” as to what the DRC members will do, what the future applicant would provide, what the limitations of the DRC will be, no statements of the DRC or individual members saying a project is appropriate or not, and going over those points of the text that Ms. Weldon just read. This should be provided to the future applicants in writing. The DRC needs to know when they applicants were coming and they could be given to the Statement of Purpose before they come to the meeting. The DRC can review the project by going point by point thr ough the guidelines. He reminded all that this is before they have an application before the commission. Vice Chair Holder said it would be a good idea to go point by point on the agenda for discussion tonight. There needs to be a procedure and an application for the pre-application meeting. They Page 23 of 28 need drawings and something to review. Ms. Weldon said that the DRC may need separate bylaws, policies and procedures, membership, terms, etc. Mr. Minyard introduced Director Hendrix and gave her a brief overview of what the topic being discussed. Director Hendrix stated that this sounded like a good idea. Mandatory or voluntary: Commissioner Pekar stated that he thought it should be voluntary on all applications. He thinks that people will take advantage of the opportunity. Commissioner Russell asked what the downside would be for mandatory for all applications. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked about if the applicants that were familiar with the guidelines would be required to attend. Commissioner Russell stated that he thought there was not any consistency in the approval or not of the applications. Smaller projects that applicants are not aware that the commission would have problems approving would benefit if they attended the meeting and reviewing the guidelines. Commissioner Hodge prefers voluntary and it is on the applicant to decide if they want to come to the meetings. He is concerned about delays. Chair Kelley asked if the consensus was mandatory on infill and voluntary on the rest. Commissioner Frederick expressed concern over delaying projects. Vice Chair Holder suggested mandatory on infill and maybe mandatory on first time applicants. The asked Mr. Minyard how many repeat applicants that the Commission had. Mr. Minyard responded that the vast majority were first time applicants. Commissioner Russell said that was not a bad idea for first time applicants to attend. There needs to be education for applicants to understand the procedure and the guidelines. Vice Chair Holder commented about giving input without giving recommendations. Commissioner Frederick asked about if it was mandatory, when would the meetings happen. It was stated that would be discussed letter. There was a motion made to make the attendance mandatory for infill and voluntary for all other projects. The motion passed 7 ayes and 0 noes. Time and date of meeting: There was a discussion on when the date of the hearing was to be held. Mr. Minyard stated that if it was at the end of the regular hearing, there may be applicants wanting to file retroactively to meet the past deadline. The calendar will need to be revised to show those dates. There was a motion to have the meetings 2 weeks prior to the filing deadline. The motion passed 7 ayes and 0 noes. Commissioner Hodge asked if you could attend multiple pre-application meetings as an applicant. Vice Chair Holder stated that if it was pre-advertised meeting, why not. Commissioner Pekar stated that the commission could address it if it became a problem. Commissioner Hodge stated it could be set up under committee rules. Ms. Weldon stated that it was an excellent question and the Commission could amend the bylaws if there was abuse of the DRC. Page 24 of 28 Location of meeting: Vice Chair Holder commented that this room is very formal and the discussion should be around a conference table. The Sister Cites Conference Room was discussed as well at the Planning Department conference room. Commissioner Russell said that you should base the space on the number of attendees. How many commissioners: There was a discussion on how many committee members were required to hold a meeting. Chair Kelley asked how many commissioners would be present. It was noted that four commissioners is a quorum and no votes can be taken on any item. There was discussion on having two stated positions and rotating or alternate positions on the third. Ms. Weldon stated that there needs to be people appointed to the committee, not a rotating membership. Consistency of the advice was discussed if there were rotating commissioners. Discussion continued on if the final vote was different than the analysis given by the DRC. Vice Chair Holder asked if there would be a staff report at the meeting and how they were to talk about surrounding context. Commissioner Russell spoke about how to discuss the items and Commissioner Hodge raised the point of how far they can go in the discussions. Commissioner Jones initiated a discussion about materials. Mr. Minyard said it was listed in wall areas and facades. Materials would be discussed in those design factors. Mr. Minyard clarified the vinyl siding policy which is to not put vinyl siding over wood siding on historic structures; it could be approved on new construction. Commissioner Jones stressed that they needed to look at all details and materials. It was discussed with new chairs and vice chairs being elected, that every January the membership my change especially if the architect or the QQA representative was the Chair. Commissioner Frederick spoke of consistency of the advice from month to month if the members were rotating and different member’s attitude and experience. Vice Chair Holder asked if there will be a staff report and what will the DRC be provided. Discussion was held about what they would need to provide. Commissioner Hodge asked how far the conversation could go on the guidelines. Mr. Minyard suggested that the discussion be limited to how you project fits with the guidelines. The design factors were listed in the guidelines in a particular order. Asking questions of the applicant and discussing the definitions of the design factors should be beneficial. The DRC may take the tack of saying phrases like ”You may want to look at the roof shape more before you file” or ”You may want to look at your window pl acement more before you file”. The commissioners will not want to say something is great and state they will vote for that. There was a motion made to have three commissioners on the DRC with the Architect and the QQA positions being required. Mr. Minyard stated that he believes that the HDC bylaws state the Chair appoints members to the committees. After the election of officers, the Chair will analyze if there is any overlap between the Chair and the Architect or QQA positions. The motion with the Chair appointing members every year passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. Mr. Minyard stated that he and Ms. Weldon would analyze what they have now and will present recommendations at the next public hearing. UPDATE: December 11, 2017 Below is a summary of the last meeting. Page 25 of 28 Mandatory or voluntary: Voted unanimously for mandatory on infill and voluntary on everything else. Size of project: Not discussed, included in the above. Time and date of meeting: Voted unanimously for meetings to be two weeks before filing deadline, time of day to be determined. Location of meeting: To be determined.  Board Room  Planning Conference Room How many commissioners: Voted unanimously for three commissioners to be appointed by Chair. An alternate will be appointed to fill in for absences. Composition of Committee: Voted unanimously for the Architect and QQA positions mandatory. The Chair, if not held by the Architect or the QQA representative, will be the third commissioner. The Bylaws state “The Chair shall present to the Commission for its approval the names of all persons appointed to committees established by the Commission. The Chair shall designate one (1) member of such committee to serve as the committee Chair.” Language of meeting synopsis: The City Attorney’s office stated that “The DRC will supplement information to the Commission based on the DRC recommendation.” The synopsis will become part of the staff report and therefore part of the minutes. Composition of Discussion: Discuss project by reviewing 11 design factors. Commissioners are not to say whether they support item or not. Submittals:  What is too little information  What is too much information  Format Below is a draft of the Statement of Purpose and General Procedures that will be provided to the public. Statement of purpose of Design Review Committee (DRC) The Design Review Committee (DRC), a committee of the Historic District Commission (HDC), will hold pre-application meetings before an applicant formally files an application to be heard by the Historic District Commission. This review by committee members in an informal environment is an effort to review conceptual and preliminary plans for a project and share concerns with the future applicant. The committee members will review the projects based on the eleven design factors as specified in the Design Guidelines. DRC meeting attendance for infill projects (new principal buildings) are mandatory for applicants while all other projects are voluntary, but highly recommended. The Commission believes that this pre- application review will help reduce deferrals and therefore reduce the time a project takes to get through the process. It is also believed that it will increase Page 26 of 28 communication between applicants and the Commission on common terms and processes of the Historic District Commission. General Procedures The role of the Design Review Committee is to explain and answer questions about the guidelines as they apply to a proposed project. With respect to a proposed construction project in the Historic District, the final decision of each commission member as to that project’s appropriateness must be based upon review of a formal application and consideration of public input concerning that application. Any indication by DRC members stating that the design is appropriate should be considered subject to change after the required public hearing before the full commission. It is anticipated that there would be one DRC pre-application meeting per project. The DRC cannot approve or deny any projects at the pre-application meetings. Official approvals, deferrals, or denials will be made at the monthly HDC public hearings. The meetings will not be public hearings; the public is invited to attend, but there will not be any public input. What is infill? Infill is when a principal structure is added to a vacant lot. The Guidelines has a definition of ‘New construction where there had been an opening before, such as a new building between two older structures’. The DRC will supplement information to the Commission based on the DRC recommendation. The Commission believes that these pre-application meetings will not delay projects, but will be able to review them in the conceptual or preliminary stage before final drawings are done and commitments are made to the design. This can save the applicants design time and money. Rules and procedures  The DRC meeting dates will be on Friday two weeks prior to the filing deadline for the HDC public hearing.  Application deadlines for the DRC meetings will be one week prior to the meeting at 5:00 pm.  Applicants must fill out the DRC application form. The DRC committee will not meet unless there is an application to be reviewed.  No pre-application meeting by the DRC will be scheduled or heard on items that are currently on the regular agenda for the HDC.  An application form will be developed stating what submittals will need to be received by staff before the DRC meeting is held. Possible submittals include: o Site plan or survey showing all current and proposed improvements including all driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, fences, property lines, and outbuildings. o Scalable elevations showing proposed appearance and its relationship to adjacent and nearby buildings. Perspectives are optional. Page 27 of 28 o List of all building materials described in the Design Guidelines should be noted on the scaled drawings, including but not limited to: doors, windows, awnings, steps, railings, walls, roofs, gutters, chimneys, foundations, decks, lighting, fences, parking areas, HVAC equipment, solar panels, and signage. o Current color photographs (all elevations) of property showing its present condition. Include color photographs of adjacent structures. High resolution digital images in jpeg format preferred. o If proposing a material that is not commonly used in the district or in that application in the historic district, samples should be brought into the meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017 Commissioner Jeremiah Russell suggested a work session in mid-January to finish the work on the pre-application meetings. He noted that forms will need to be made. Mr. Minyard stated that he received a call from a contractor that was interested in coming to a DRC meeting for a house on Daisy Bates Drive. There was a motion made by Commissioner Russell to schedule a work session in mid-January instead of discussing the item tonight and was seconded by Commissioner Dale Pekar. The motion passed 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance Staff did not issue any this month. 2018 Calendar The 2018 calendar was presented to the Commission. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Russell to adopt as amended by striking the first two pre - application meetings. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Election of Officers Debra Weldon stated that the floor should be open to nominations for chair. Chair Dick Kelley opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated Chair Kelley to another term. Commissioner Pekar seconded. Chair Kelley declined since he is not going to seek another term and he would only serve a partial term. Chair Kelley nominated Vice Chair Ted Holder to be Chair. The nomination was seconded and the election of Vice Chair Holder to Chair passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Chair Dick Kelley opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. Vice Chair Holder nominated Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to be Vice Chair. Commissioner Amber Jones seconded. The election of Commissioner Russell to Vice Chair passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Mr. Minyard added that the scenario of having the QQA representative or the architect as Chair has come to pass in reference to the makeup of the Design Review Committee. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:38 p.m. Attest: Chair Secretary /Staff Fv1�r 1 1_ -/0�� Date Page 28 of 28