Loading...
HDC_02 12 2018Page 1 of 23 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 12, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Dick Kelley Dale Pekar Lauren Frederick Amber Jones Robert Hodge Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Kwendeche Patricia Blick Approval of Minutes Commissioner Robert Hodge made a motion to approve the January 8, 2018 minutes as amended. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent 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. There was a motion by Commissioner Robert Hodge to amend the order of the agenda since Kwendeche was not present at this time and start with the Pre-Application meetings item. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded and the motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. 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 23 DATE: February 12, 2018 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 3 of 23 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 addition to platting matters. Page 4 of 23 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 membership of the commission. Mr. Minyard responded that the thought was that it would be three members of the commission. Three cannot be a quorum. Page 5 of 23 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. 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 Page 6 of 23 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  Additions  Individually listed Page 7 of 23  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 8 of 23 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 9 of 23 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 10 of 23 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 placement 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. Page 11 of 23 UPDATE: December 11, 2017 Below is a summary of the last meeting. 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 12 of 23 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. 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, Page 13 of 23 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). STAFF UPDATE: February 12, 2018 The commission met on January 23, 2018 to discuss. The press was notified but did not attend. Commissioners present were Vice Chair Russell, Amber Jones, Dale Pekar, Dick Kelley, and Lauren Frederick. Brian Minyard and Debra Weldon were also in attendance. A sample package was distributed to the Commission before the meeting and consisted of Instructions, Information sheet, and Application. Changes were suggested on the submittals (digital versus paper) and exactly what was required upon submittal. Discussion then focused on how the Commission was to review the projects and how to respond to the future applicant. It was decided to have a Design Review Committee Comment sheet in which the eleven design factors were listed along with their definitions. This sheet will be completed in the Pre-application meeting as well as being a part of the application packet. It was hoped that the future applicant would self-evaluate their project based on the eleven criteria before they came to the DRC meeting. Staff will include the comments from the DRC into the Staff report for new infill COAs. The pages that follow are the markup version of the application packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: February 12, 2018 Staff recommends that the commission adopt and for the Chair to appoint members to the DRC. COMMISSION ACTION: February 12, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission and mentioned the result of the January 23rd work session. He went over points that were in the handout highlighted to be edited. Commissioner Dale Pekar clarified his points that were presented in his email. Concerning the “Information Concerning the Design Review Committee” page of the middle sentence on the second paragraph, there was discussion on moving it to the bulleted section or deleting it in its entirety. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, suggested to move the latter part of the second sentence to the end of the third sentence so that it would read: “Any indication by DRC members as to the appropriateness of a design is considered subject to change after the required public hearing before the full commission as the final decision of each Page 14 of 23 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.” The next discussion brought up by Commissioner Lauren Frederick was concerning the “Design Review Committee Comment Sheet” and whether or not Staff would summarize the comments into one sheet at the meeting or if the individual committee members would wrote their own at the meeting. Another facet was how the applicants would get the copies of the summaries. Commissioner Frederick advocated giving them copies of each member’s notes. She also warned that a summary could be perceived as a recommendation. Commissioner Pekar suggested just copying the sheets to give to the applicants after the meeting. Vice Chair Russell asked that the sheets be summarized for the staff report. Chair Ted Holder said that that would be a better record of the meeting. Vice Chair Russell said that the essential parts were okay and we can work out the details later. Ms. Weldon wanted everyone to understand that the central premise was to meet with the citizens to emphasize the explanation of the requirements and giving constructive criticism based on the design factors in the ordinance without stating whether a member would vote for the item. Patricia Blick, QQA Executive Director, said that this was a tool used in Annapolis where she previously worked. She believed the comment sheet was a good idea. There was a motion by Commissioner Pekar to establish a committee and accept the application with edits as stated. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. Page 15 of 23 DATE: February 12, 2018 APPLICANT: Delbra Caradine ADDRESS: 1101 Cumberland COA REQUEST: Exterior Renovations PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1101 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1, Block 46, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This commercial building was built in ca 1925 and extensively remodeled in 1988 after a fire destroyed the western half of the building. The 2006 survey form states: “Red Crown Water Com. Added dry cleaning and laundry to business and occupied building to 1987. 1988 Fashion Park Cleaners.” It is considered a "Non- Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for remodeling of the eastern portion of the building into a residence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On May 8, 2006, a COA was issued to Wali Caradine for signage that was never installed.. On June 17, 1988, a COA was approved and issued to Brooksher Banks to reconstruct the portion of the building that was destroyed by fire. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This proposal is to take the eastern portion of a commercial building and convert it into a residence. This will involve removing the dryvit finish that was applied in the 1988 to expose the original brick walls. The windows and doors on the north façade (11th Street façade) will be replaced. Starting on the left of the elevation, and overhead door and a man door will be converted into windows, the three existing windows will have new windows installed 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. A. Location of Project Page 16 of 23 remaining western overhead door will be converted into a man door with two sidelights, one on each side. The eastern façade on the alley will have the one overhead door converted and expanded into two garage doors, and the windows and existing man door will remain in the same place. The man door will be converted into a decorative gate. The south side will remain virtually unchanged with the exception of reglazing and refinishing the steel windows, repointing the brick where necessary and filing nonfunctional holes in the brick wall. In the City ordinance Section 23-120, it states the eleven factors on which a rehabilitation project is to be judged. They are Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Facade, Scale, and Massing. The Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Scale and Massing is not felt to be changed in the proposed rehabilitation. More of these factors are discussed below in the guidelines excerpts. Proposed Changes to the North (11th Street) elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Remove all dryvit from the project area, 3) Remove paint and excess mortar from brick, 4) Repoint brick where needed, 5) Remove blue awnings, 6) Remove downspouts, 7) Possibly move Entergy electric connection into building, 8) Remove eastern overhead door and replace with steel windows, 9) Remove steel man door and enlarge opening and replace with steel window, 10) Existing north elevation from 2006 survey Contributing and Non-contributing map Existing 11th Street (North) elevation Page 17 of 23 Remove three aluminum windows and replace with steel windows, 11) Remove western overhead door and replace with solid wood door and sidelights, 12) Install metal corrugated canopy above wood entry door, 13) Remove metal ramp leading to western overhead door, and 14) Install four wall mounted lights. Changes to the Alley (East) elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Retain brick, clean and repoint as necessary and fill in any nonfunctional openings, 3) Selectively demolish area surrounding overhead door to make room for two garage doors and two windows will be removed in the process, 4) Remove downspouts, 5) Remove existing canopy, 6) Remove existing man door, 7) Concrete pad at overhead door to be demolished and concrete ramp to new garage to be installed, 8) Install 3 new downspouts, 9) Install two garage doors, 10) Install new metal canopy above garage doors to replace existing, 11) Replace man door with ornate metal gate, 12) Install metal corrugated canopy above entry, 13) Existing steel windows to be replaced with new steel windows of same size and location and 14) Add new galvanized handrails and concrete ramp. Proposed 11th Street (North) elevation Existing Alley (East) elevation Proposed Alley (East) elevation Page 18 of 23 Changes to the South elevation: 1) Existing terra cotta clay wall coping will be inspected and replaced where necessary, 2) Refinish and reglaze existing steel windows, 3) Repointing the brick where necessary and filing nonfunctional holes in the brick wall, 4) Remove any extra mortar where neighboring building was attached. On page 10 of the Guidelines, it states “Removing inappropriate, non- historic alterations can help reveal the historic character of buildings. Removing the dryvit exterior that was added in 1988 can accomplish this goal for the eastern part of the building. The western part of the building was reconstructed in 1988 and removing the dryvit from that part of the building may not be possible. The Ordinance requires the Commission to review applications based on the eleven design factors. Seven of these factors are not believed to be affected by this application. However, Entrance areas, Wall areas, Detailing and Façade will be changed with this proposal. These design factors are discussed in the following paragraphs; more specifically, the door styles choses in reference to the Entrance areas, Wall areas in reference to the size and location of openings that will be modified, Detailing in reference to the lighting and awnings, and Façade in reference to the sum of the changes to the 11th Street side of the building. On the 11th Street side, the overhead door is proposed to be replaced with a man door with sidelights and a transom. On page 23 of the Guidelines, the text refers to the storefront door and not replacing that door with “decorative doors or any door based upon a different historical period or style.” This is not the main door into the building, but will be a prominent feature. The proposed door with its curved mid-rail could be called having a French influence. It is certainly not an early 20th century commercial building auxiliary door. While this will not function as the main entry to the house, it will have the appearance to be the main entry for public. Staff believes that this door is too decorative and should be more in keeping with side doors of the period. A door with one-half or two-thirds glass on the top without the transom would be more fitting. The sidelights should also be simplified. Also on the 11th Street side, all of the doors and windows are being changed in different ways. The top of the existing doors and windows are at different heights on the wall. Changing the height of these in an effort to match or coordinate erases the history of the original openings. Staff does not support raising the header of the man door that is being converted to windows. Existing south elevation Proposed door on 11th Street Page 19 of 23 Staff does support the installation of period steel windows that match the windows on the south side of the building. On the 11th Street side as well as the Alley elevation, three corrugated metal awnings are proposed to be installed. One will be at the western overhead door/new entry door and two will be on the alley side, one over the garage doors and one over the entry area. There is currently a metal awning over the alley side overhead door. Details on how this canopy will be constructed are not included in the submittals. On the Alley (East) side, the overhead door will be removed as well as part of the wall to accommodate two new garage doors. As stated above, “decorative doors or any door based upon a different historical period or style” are not recommended. Staff does not support the design of the garage door windows. Simpler rectangular windows in the top of the garage doors would be more appropriate if windows are desired in the garage doors. The location of the new air conditioning units on the rooftop will be the least visible from the street. The building is built to the property lines on the north and south sides. On the site design, the following changes are proposed: Alley (East) side, 1) Concrete pad at overhead door to be demolished and concrete ramp to new garage to be installed, 2) Add new galvanized handrails and concrete ramp, on 11th Street, 3) the metal ramp that leads to the western overhead door will be removed and replaced with concrete steps. According to the survey, there is approximately six feet in which to build this ramp from the garage towards the alley. Part of the alley right of way may not be currently paved and it will also need to be paved. Also, the survey shows approximately shows 3.6’ in width to build this ramp and handrails alongside the building towards 11th Street. The ramp will slope down towards 11th street. On the 11th Street side on the westernmost overhead door, there is a metal ramp that is to be removed with be replaced with concrete steps. If handrails are to be installed, details will need to be provided. A Franchise permit may be required for this improvement. The curb and dropoff/sidewalk will remain as is. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Submittal of final door/entry unit and final garage door design to Staff prior to construction. If doors are significantly different than those approved by the commission, a separate hearing may be required to approve the windows. 3. Size and locations of original openings on 11th street elevation are not to be changed. 4. Approval of franchise permit for awnings and other improvements in the right of ways. Proposed garage doors on the alley Page 20 of 23 COMMISSION ACTION: January 8, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked about requiring that the brick not be sandblasted to remove the paint or excess mortar. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant would need to respond to that question. Kwendeche, the architect representing the owner, stated that he was in agreement with the comments in the Staff report. He clarified that he was not changing the opening sizes or locations on the 11th street side. The intent is to come back with more different specific doors. He mentioned and awning on the east side of the building and will try to mimic what is there now with the additional awning on the north side. There is no issue with Staff comments and will follow up at appropriate time. Raymond Weber, 1112 Rock Street, said that there was trouble with people blocking the alley. This is a dead end alley with only one way out to the north. He worried about the construction traffic blocking the alley. Paul Dorman, 1104 Rock, commented that the width of the sidewalk/ramp to the street might infringe on the alley right of way. Kwendeche said that it was a platted 20’ alley and that not all of it was paved. There is adequate width to get the sidewalk to 11th street in without getting into the alley. He also stated that the construction traffic would not block the alley. It will be in the conditions of the contractors not to block the alley. Chair Holder asked who in the city was responsible for that. Mr. Minyard stated to start with the permit desk and the inspectors. The police could also be called if necessary. Kwendeche stated that removing the excess mortar and paint of the brick would be done mechanically, no chemicals or sandblasting. Mr. Minyard explained different options on resolving issues brought up in the staff report. The commission could approve the item tonight and leave the decision of doors, opening sizes and canopy up to staff to approve. This requires a verbal description of the approved door or other items. Or, the Commission could ask for a deferral. Kwendeche will provide details back to staff within a reasonable time. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff is not comfortable with leaving the door selection up to Staff it the Commission has not verbally decided on a door style and materials. Vice Chair Russell suggested that the applicant choose the door style and bring back to Staff. Debra Weldon stated that Kwendeche would need to be willing to defer the application. It was noted that the City will send out the notices. The commission wants detail on the lighting, doors and awnings. Kwendeche stated that he was okay with the deferral. The design details will need to be into Staff’s hands by January 22nd. Kwendeche stated he would match the steel windows. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer for additional information concerning windows, lights, doors and awnings till the February 12, 2018 hearing. Commissioner Rob Hodge seconded and the motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. Page 21 of 23 STAFF UPDATE: February 12, 2018 The applicant provided staff with additional information as requested by the Commission. The garage door has been changed to a more commercial looking door. This Overhead Door Stormtite Model 620 features galvanized steel construction with interlocking slats of 1 7/8 inch wide. It will be Gray in color. The steel windows will be Hope’s One55 Series or similar. The ones specified is a hot rolled steel product and were specifically designed for projects requiring replication of historic steel windows with true arrow muntins. The light sconce has been changed to be Urban Barn 11 ¼” high galvanized indoor outdoor wall light. This short gooseneck light fixture will be placed at four locations on the north wall and once on the east wall. The new elevations do not reflect the new lighting choice. The canopy detail features a 2.67” x 7/8” galvanized corrugated metal roof panel as is currently installed on the east façade of the building. This will project 2’-6” from the façade of the building and will have 2”x2” metal tube frame below to support the canopy. The man door on the north elevation has been changed to one with a more commercial feel to be similar to a Trudoor Steel Lite Kit and Glass which features a “long narrow lite” to one side with two flanking side lights. The glass will be double glazed tempered on the outboard and translucent on the inboard. The new elevation shows the height of the top sills of the windows to remain unchanged. In the meeting, Kwendeche stated they would not be changed. Staff believes that the new design of the doors and lights and the clarification on the canopy and steel windows is in keeping with the Guidelines. The new submittals are more appropriate for a commercial style building. See additional submittals starting on page 9 of this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Approval of franchise permit for awnings and other improvements in the right of ways. COMMISSION ACTION: February 12, 2018 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Kwendeche, representing the owner, clarified that the removal of the old paint and excess mortar would be through pressure washing with a low pressure with some mechanical removal as needed. There will be no damage to the brick. He offered to answer any questions. There was a discussion of the wall lights and the final number on the project as four on one side and one on the east for a total of five. Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the QQA, stated that the QQA Advocacy group reviewed all of the materials and agrees with Staff recommendations. Page 22 of 23 Commissioners Amber Jones and Robert Hodge commented that the project looked great. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve with Staff recommendations and conditions. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. Other Matters: Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet will be sent to the commissioners later. Committee Appointments Chair Ted Holder made the following appointments to the committees: To the Design Review Committee: Ted Holder — Chair of the DRC and QQA representative Jeremiah Russell —Architect Amber Jones — Member Robert Hodge — Alternate Member To the Preservation Plan Implementation Committee: Jeremiah Russell — Chair of the PPIC Dick Kelley — Member Dale Pekar — Member Lauren Frederick — Member Mr. Minyard stated that the DRC was set on the calendar at two weeks ahead of the hearing. The PPIC meets on the third Friday of the month. There are two or three months that they overlap on the same day. The PPIC meets at 10:30 and Mr. Minyard suggested that the DRC meet in the afternoon. After discussion, it was decided that the DRC will meet at 2:00 pm in the Planning Department 2nd Floor conference room. Debra Weldon stated that the Chair nominates the committee members but the full commission must approve the members via a vote. There was a motion to approve the time of the meetings by Mice Chair Russell and was seconded by Robert Hodge. The motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes. 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 5:43 p.m. Attest: Chair Z Secretary/Staff Date Date Page 23 of 23