Loading...
HDC_01 13 2020Page 1 of 14 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 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Amber Jones Robert Hodge One Open Position Members Absent: Lauren Frederick Lindsey Boerner City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Adam Day Page Wilson Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the November 4, 2019 minutes as amended. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent (Frederick and Boerner) and 1 Open Position. Page 2 of 14 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. DATE: January 13, 2020 APPLICANT: Tommy Lasiter, Scott Street Investments ADDRESS: 1300 S Scott Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-001 COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1300 and 1320 S Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “Lots 7-12, Block 14, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The northern building at 13th and Scott is 1300 Scott Street while the southern building at Daisy Bates and Scott is 1320 Scott Street. These two apartment buildings were built in 2017. They are considered to be "Non-Contributing Structures" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This project is in the overlap area that is reviewed both by this Commission and the Capitol Zoning District Commission (CZDC). CZDC can administratively approve this fence as submitted. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 10, 2016 a COA was issued to Tommy Lasiter for the construction of two buildings with 35 apartments. On July 10, 1997, a COA was approved and issued to the Arkansas Association of Nigerians to build a community center on the middle two lots. In October 1991, a COA was issued to demolish the Urbana Apartments that were located on the north half of this property. Location of Project Page 3 of 14 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to enclose the front and side yards that face the streets with a 3 foot fence with multiple gates to serve the individual entrances and to common entry doors. The fence is to be a Montage Plus welded ornamental steel fence with three rails extended pickets with 4” spacing between pickets. The pickets extend past the top of the highest rail and are flattened to a point. The gates will have the same picket pattern, be 40 inches wide and will be flat, not arched. The fence is to be installed at the property line along 13th, Scott, and Daisy Bates Drive. There will be 3 gates along Daisy Bates Drive, 4 along Scott Street at the southern building (1320 S Scott), 4 at the northern building (1300 S Scott), along Scott Street and 3 along 13th Street. The fence will be setback from the street corners and will be installed behind the existing planting beds. See site plan on page 6. In two locations, the sidewalk location was varied to go around exiting trees. At these locations, the fence location will need to be modified to go behind the trees onto the private property or in front of the trees which would require a franchise permit. The posts should be set so that they Existing south and east facades Contributing and Non-contributing map Proposed Gate section with fence shown on sides. Page 4 of 14 will not interfere with major roots of the trees. The fence panels may need to be modified from the standard length to accommodate this. Currently there is a taller fence between the two buildings as shown in the photo to the right. The proposed 3’ fence will turn ninety degrees from the sidewalk and extend to the building at the porches. Since there is a fence between the buildings anyway, there was no need to add the 3’ inch tall fence along the sidewalk. This fence conforms to the guidelines that are included later in 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 building permit. 2. Modify fence layout around trees to avoid tree trunks and major roots. 3. Connect fences to building at western edge of building. COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission on the item. He commented that this was in the overlap area between the HDC and Capitol Zoning District Commission. CZDC, operating under a different enabling legislation, can administratively approve fences that meet their rules. HDC must have the public hearing as the Commission is doing now. There were no comments, emails, or phone calls at the time of this hearing. Notice requirements were met on this item. 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. Existing south sidewalk looking west. Existing east sidewalk looking south. Area between 1300 and 1320 Scott Street. Page 5 of 14 Adam Day, AMR Architects, stated that the fence was similar to fences throughout the district and it was for residents to be able to use the front yards for dogs and other purposes. There was a discussion on relocating the fence to go around the existing trees. He did say that he would amend the application to move the fence to go around the trees on the private property side as recommended in the application. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve item as amended with staff recommendations. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent (Frederick and Boerner) and 1 Open Position. Page 6 of 14 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff reported 314 E 6th and 617 Cumberland Street had filed for the February 10, 2020 hearing. Certificates of Compliance One was issued at 1414 Parklane for demolition of the remains of the burned house. Mr. Minyard stated that the building official had reviewed the site and staff administratively signed off on the demolition under the exemptions as listed in the ordinance. The debris and the concrete will be removed and holes in the ground would be filled. Guideline Revision Nothing to report. Page 7 of 14 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 D. DATE: January 13, 2020 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide REQUEST: Revise Bylaws concerning Ex-Parte Communication The HDC By-Laws do not address ex-parte communication. As these communications are a reoccurring issue the HDC has decided it would be in the Commission’s best interests to amend its By-Laws to include a provision on ex-parte communication. Such an amendment would take the form of adding an Article IX. The HDC has unfettered discretion to draft this By-Law provision However; there are possible amendments which highlight the key issues. (The differences between the versions are highlighted.) The Commission is by no means limited to these possibilities. Commissioners are welcome to make other suggestions. Once a final decision is made, the Commission will amend the By-Laws pursuant to Article VII. Amendments. If there are any other sections of the By-Laws which need to be amended, it is advised that the Commission address all By-Law amendments at the same time. The current set of bylaws were adopted in 2011. Article IX. Ex-Parte Communications ISSUE 1: Who cannot communicate with a Commissioner ex-parte? VERSION 1.1: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between a person who is not a member of the Historic District Commission or affiliated with the Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex-parte communications are prohibited. VERSION 1.2: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between an applicant or any person who is professionally affiliated with the applicant regarding a matter before the Historic District Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex- parte communications are prohibited. Page 8 of 14 Analysis of Issue 1: Version 1.1 prohibits all citizens from talking to a commissioner where version 1.2 only prohibits the applicant and his/her team. Staff is of the opinion that version 2 better addresses the problems Commissioners face concerning ex-parte communications. Version 1.1 is the stricter and would qualify any and all communication outside of HDC meetings as ex-parte. ISSUE 2: What happens in the event of an ex-parte communication? VERSION 2.1: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting and recuse himself from all Commission discussions and votes concerning the matter which was the subject of the ex-parte communication. VERSION 2.2: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting. Analysis of Issue 2: Version 2.1 states that when an ex-parte communication happens, that commissioner must disclose the information to the HDC and recuse. Version 2.2 mandates disclosure but the Commissioner retains his/her voting privileges. Issue 2 is tied to the results of Issue 1. The following are the four scenarios of the possible outcomes of the proposed amendments. 1.1 and 2.1 All citizens included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation and recuse from a vote on the matter. This could result in hampering the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.2 and 2.1 Only the applicant and his/her team included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation and recuse. This would potentially have a lesser result than the above-mentioned scenario but could still hamper the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.1 and 2.2 All citizens are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but can vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. This could include unsolicited emails which were not replied to and thwarted conversations about an item (see below). Page 9 of 14 1.2 and 2.2 Only the applicant and his/her team are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but could still vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. At the beginning of each item at the public hearings, Staff (Planning or City Attorney’s office) will have to ask if there are any Commissioners who have had ex-parte communications and details or evidence of such (email, phone, in person conversation, if the commissioner engaged in dialogue, etc.). There should be an opportunity for discussion and, when needed, a vote that the Commissioner will recuse or remain and vote based on each instance. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION A matter for consideration is the extent to which the Commissioner participated in the ex-parte communication. Email in particular poses a problem. Commissioners cannot avoid unsolicited emails. However, Commissioners do not have to reply to emails. (All emails which are received by Commissioners on the item should be forwarded to Staff to include in the record.) Commissioners also cannot stop a person approaching them at the grocery store, street, etc., to discuss an item. What Commissioners can do is to thwart the conversation by stating “If I have a conversation with you about the project, I may have to recuse on the item. Please send the Staff any concerns you have on the project. The Staff can discuss the project with you.” It is advisable for the Commissioner who has had such a conversation to email Staff with a synopsis immediately after the conversation when the discussion is still fresh in her/her memory. This email should be entered as part of the record. COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019 This item was deferred to the January 13, 2020 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Robert Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions. STAFF UPDATE: January 13, 2020 After the hearing of December 9, 2020, the following additions to the item are proposed. There is a proposal to strike this section since it is not a policy that Staff follows. Article V. Conduct of Business D. Special Rules of Procedure [p. 6] 6. The Secretary of the Commission shall affix an identification tag which includes the case number and an exhibit designation in sequence beginning with “A” to each item, visual or written, formally presented to the Commission at the time of the material’s introduction to the Commission, which is designated by the applicant or other parties testifying before the Commission as a submission to form part of the record upon which the Commission makes its decision. Page 10 of 14 This section would change the requirement to waive the bylaws when an applicant wants to defer at the meeting. The new text would allow them to ask any time before the hearing or at the hearing. E. General Policies [p. 7] 8. Deferrals. An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred only as follows: a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant (1) The applicant's request for deferral must may be submitted in writing prior to the date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing. (2) The request for deferral must state the reason that a deferral is needed and must specify the proposed length of the deferral. (3) The applicant's request for deferral must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission members present. (4) No single request for deferral by an applicant shall be granted for more than one hundred (100) days, except by unanimous vote of all Commission members present. (5) In no case shall more than two requests for deferral by an applicant be granted by the Commission. (6) Notice of the date of the deferred public hearing shall be sent as required in Article IV above. (7) If the applicant is not prepared to move forward after two deferral requests have been granted by the Commission, the following options are available to the Commission as circumstances require: (i) Hold the public hearing and grant or deny the application; (ii) Defer the public hearing on the Commission's own motion for cause; or (iii) Dismiss the application without prejudice or with prejudice against refilling the same application within one (1) year. COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020 Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, led the presentation of the item. Commissioner Robert Hodge stated that the commissioners should disclose all conversations. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that they could not be like Mark Twain’s perfect juror, who knows nothing and can’t read. The commissioners live in this society. They have a responsibility to be objective and not be swayed by citizen comment. Ms. Latimer recommended that all emails and letters be forwarded to the Staff for distribution to all commissioners and the project file. Ms. Latimer will draft something and send to the Commission ahead of the next meeting. The Commissioners were encouraged to forward any other items for bylaw changes to the Staff for inclusion in the staff report. The item will be placed on the February 2020 agenda for changes. Chair Russell asked if the Commission was amenable to revising the text on the five-day notice for withdrawal. On that, Mr. Minyard explained that it was there for courtesy of the public. If Staff knows an item will be on deferral, they can notify the public not to attend in advance. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he was in favor of the change in the bylaws. Page 11 of 14 Ms. Latimer stated that there will be a vote next month for the bylaw changes and that this discussion today will satisfy the requirements for the bylaws to be changed. Page 12 of 14 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 E. DATE: January 13, 2020 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District Wide REQUEST: Review Area of Influence for notices The area of influence was changed in late 2016 from 150 feet for all surrounding properties to 150 feet for all properties plus those in the block that were not included. The previous 150 foot notice area did not always notify every property owner in the block even on the standard 300 square foot block. City Staff is reviewing development codes. They have suggested that we modify the area of influence for notifications. The Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment for their purposes use 200 feet. When compared to the standard we use now (150 feet plus the remainder of the block), this additional 50 feet would include more notifications in adjacent blocks but may not catch all within the block. There are six superblocks in the district (larger than the 300’ x 300’ standard size for downtown Little Rock). Three are bounded by Capitol, 8th, Rock and Sherman. The others are at the Law School, MacArthur Park proper, and the Parkview Towers at 11th and Commerce. Staff has used the definition of block as that area surrounded by streets. Staff analyzed the maximum distance that would be required to notify property owners in each block. From one corner to the other is the greatest distance and it is noticeably longer if the corner parcels have been subdivided. The typical block with original lots was 12 parcels. Some blocks have only one parcel of property and some blocks two parcels. Of the 42 blocks analyzed, the average distance between the farthest parcels was 140 feet. The longest distance between parcels was 575 feet in the block bounded by 6th, Sherman, 7th and Rock Streets. The second longest was at 552 for the block bounded by Capitol, Sherman, 6th and Rock. If an applicant is providing notices because they filed for a Certificate of Appropriateness and if you fall within the six superblocks, you must provide more notifications than the other applicants in smaller blocks. This adds up to more names to be researched by the abstract com pany and more certified return receipt mailings to post which costs you noticeably more than other property owners. Page 13 of 14 Since the notification requirements have been changed to include everyone in the block, different owners have had to resubmit their lists from the abstract company because the company had a difficult time understanding the boundaries. Changing the notifications to a straight 200 feet would satisfy notifying all the owners in the block for the majority of blocks, reduce confusion of generating the lists by standardization within the entire department, reduce the mailing costs and abstract costs for the applicants, and equalize the playing field for those who own property in the three superblocks. The ordinance states that the Area of influence is to be described in the Guidelines. A vote will change the definition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Area of influence to be changed to 200 feet. COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019 This item was deferred to the January 13, 2020 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Robert Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions. COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Vice Chair Ted Holder asked about people in the superblocks. Mr. Minyard said the rule would be the same for all property owners, a simple 200 feet from your property. If you have property on the edge of the district, you would still notify people outside of the district up to the 200 feet. On the case of the Park, Mr. Minyard explained that there are multiple parcels in that superblock and they would notify within 200 feet of the affected parcel. Since 2005, six times the Commission has reviewed changing the area, changing sometimes and sometimes not. Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if the measurement was from the center of the property or the property lines. Mr. Minyard stated it was the property lines. There was further discussion on the differences between the existing and proposed definition. It was noted by Staff that the ordinance states that the Area of Influence will be described in the guidelines. Mr. Minyard stated that it will be changed in the guidelines and on the application package. Mr. Minyard stated that going to 200 feet would be uniform across the department. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to approve item as amended with staff recommendations. Vice Chair Ted Holder seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent (Frederick and Boerner) and 1 Open Position. Page 14 of 14 Citizen Communication Page Wilson, 324 E 15th, spoke about changing the bylaws. He stated that it needed to be streamlined and be consistently enforced. He spoke of costs to the applicants. He noted that the commission only had four members in attendance and asked if it was a quorum. He was informed that it was a quorum. He thought that the Commission should slow down on the process. He asked for it to be disseminated to the public but stated that he had read the agenda online. Chair Russell stated that the Commission publishes the agenda online for the citizens. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:35 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date