HDC_08 03 2023August 3, 2023
1
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
MINUTE RECORD
Thursday, August 3rd, 2023, 4:00 p.m.
Willie Hinton Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 W. 12th Street
I. Roll Call
Members Present: Chair, Amber Jones
Vice Chair, Christina Aleman
Tom Fennell
Thomas DeGraff
Jonathan Nunn
Members Absent: Scott Green
Amber Haugen
Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff
Jeremy Gosdin
Sherri Latimer
Alice Anderson
Citizens Present: Bryan Smith
Joe Flaherty
II. Finding a Quorum
A quorum was present being five (5) in number.
III. Minutes
1. July 6th, 2023 Minutes
The minutes were presented. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to
accept the minutes. Commissioner Nunn seconded. The minutes were
approved by voice vote.
August 3, 2023
2
IV. National Register Nominations
None
V. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
VI. New Certificates of Appropriateness
1. HDC2023-022 Bryan Smith/ Hut Little Rock
BMD Builders
913 McMath Avenue
Demolition
VII. Other Matters
1. Review of the By-Laws
2. COA Term Expirations & Extensions
3. Enforcement Issues
4. Certificates of Compliance
5. Citizen Communication
VIII. Adjournment
August 3, 2023
3
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
NAME: Demolition
LOCATION: 913 McMath Ave
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Hut Little Rock LLC Bryan Smith
225 Bush St., Ste 1800 BMD Builders
San Francisco, CA 94104-4211 119 E. Center Street,
Beebe, AR 72012
Figure 1. 913 McMath, Little Rock, AR
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
4
AREA: 0.53 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District
HISTORIC STATUS: Non-Contributing
CURRENT ZONING: UU – Urban Use
A. BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is located at 913 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal
description is “Lots 12, 13 and the South ½ of Lot 14, all of the South ½ of Lot 5,
all of the Lot 6 and all of Lot 7 lying West of the U.S. Interstate Highway No. 30
Right of Way, all in Block 4, Masonic Addition to the City of Little Roc k, Pulaski
County, Arkansas.”
Context
The subject property is the site
of a one-story commercial
building with exterior walls of
combination brick veneer and
siding, built 1981. The structure
is currently vacant and has
solely been used as a Pizza Hut
restaurant. In c. 1971, three
historic residences were
demolished following the
rezoning of the property from
two-family to commercial for the
purpose of new commercial
development.
The structure is a Non-
Contributing resource identified
in the 2007 National Register
survey form, PU2943. The
building is oriented to face
Interstate 30 and is frame
construction on a continuous
foundation. The structure has a
rectangular plan with a hipped
standing seam metal roof. The
Figure 2. Location of 913 McMath within the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
5
roof had a central built-up pyramid for a Pizza Hut sign which is no longer present.
Windows are stationary in a trapezoidal shape, some being open corner windows.
Several windows are horizontal and sliding, to service a drive -through. The rear of
the building faces McMath and has a freezer addition attached.
From construction, the building originally displayed a wood shake roof. In 1996,
the property was updated to the iconic “red roof” design conceptualized by
architect Richard D. Burke in the late 1960s. The pizza company’s red roof
architecture is recognizable across the United States. According to the company’s
blog, Pizza Hut opened in Wichita, Kansas by two college -aged brothers who
borrowed $600 from their mom. By 1971, Pizza Hut Inc. became the No. 1 pizza
restaurant chain in the world in both sales and number of restaurants.
Recent/Previous Action
In 1968, a zoning permit (Z-2181) was denied for the rezoning of three lots from
two-family to commercial for the purpose of a service station.
In 1978, a CUP (Z-3237) was issued to Dr. Lem Clement to allow for a restaurant
of “nondrive-in nature”.
In 1989, a COA (HDC1989-004) was issued to the National Pizza Co. to add a
drive through window.
Figure 3. Pizza Hut with wood shake roof, 913 McMath, looking southwest
from I-30 Frontage Rd, 1996
Figure 4. Pizza Hut with metal roof, 913 McMath, looking northwest from
I-30 Frontage Rd, 2018.
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
6
In 1996, a COA (HDC1996-006) was issued to Robert Cotton to replace the wood
shake roof with red standing seam metal.
No other actions were found.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The application requests for the permitted demolition of all structures on the
property, these being: the primary structure and grease trap. The application notes
that the asphalt parking lot will remain, and all vegetation will be removed.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
See site photos (Attachment A) and application packet (Attachment B). Currently
all window and door openings are boarded. Access to the property is restricted.
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood
associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were
notified of the public hearing.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Design Guidelines provide five conditions in which a demolition may be
granted by the Commission (page 55).
Section VI. 2. 1-5. Demolition states:
1. “The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as
determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports
commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer,
architect, or other person expert in historic preservation.
2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability
or irreparable deterioration of a building.
3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the
LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the
property, not to the financial status of the property owner.
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
7
4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer
contributes to the district.
5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the
building.”
Staff finds the primary condition relating to this property in consideration of
demolition is the lack of identified historic value. The property has previously been
surveyed for historic and cultural significance and no significance has been
determined by the National Park Service at this time. Built in 1981, the property is
less than 50 years old and outside the period of significance of the MacArthur Park
Historic District (1842-1960). The property is not independently listed in the
National Register. Staff confirmed with the National Register team at the AHPP
that there were no current initiatives at the state or federal level concerning Pizza
Hut restaurants as a context or this specific structure. Staff is unaware of any local
initiatives or designations concerning this structure’s historic and cultural value.
Beyond a 2023 Limited Asbestos Inspection (Attachment B), no reports were
submitted with the application concerning public safety. Relocation of the structure
is not being considered by Staff as an alternative since it has been determined that
the structure is non-contributing to the district and has no identified historic value.
Concerning substantial hardship, no exact cost comparisons have been provided
by the applicant and no documentation has been submitted identifying
circumstances unique to the property under substantial hardship.
The Guidelines also state that significant care should be taken when reviewing an
application for demolition to consider the impact to the district. The Little Rock
Historic Preservation Code states (Sec. 23-121.) that in consideration of a COA
for a demolition, the Commission may defer the matter to consider the following
alternatives:
“(a) Sources of funding for preservation and restoration activities, if lack of
such funds is the reason for the request to demolish.
(b) Adaptive use changes, if there are conditions under which the required
preservation of a historic landmark would cause undue hardship to the
owner or owners, so long as such changes are in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this division.
(c) An attempt to find a purchaser for the property who would maintain the
landmark in a suitable and acceptable manner within the limits of this
division.
(d) The feasibility of moving the structure to another appropriate location.
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
8
(e) Any such other solution as may be deemed advisable and in keeping
with the spirit and intent of this division.”
Considering alternatives to demolition according to Sec. 23 -121, the structure is
not eligible for rehabilitation tax credits or restoration grants since the structure is
not a contributing structure to the district and is not independently listed. An
attempt to find a purchaser who would maintain the building, or to consider
adaptive use changes, is unnecessary since the structure does not have landmark
status and the current property owner is active in the property’s improvement.
Concerning the MacArthur Park Historic District National Register status, the
demolition of the structure at 913 McMath will not impact the district’s eligibility
totals since it is a non-contributing structure that is not eligible in the district due to
the year it was built.
Staff finds the application is within the conditions for demolition. Any new
construction on the property will require the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions:
1. Obtain required permits.
2. Properly prepare the structure for demolition.
3. Dismantle and remove the structures from the property avoiding
damage to surrounding structures.
4. Remove all debris.
G. COMMISSION ACTION AUGUST 3, 2023
Staff, Ratzlaff, made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones asked if the
applicant would like to make a presentation. Bryan Smith, authorized
representative, spoke on the applicant’s behalf. Mr. Smith said he believed the
demolition of the structure was a “win-win” for the historic district based on the
determination that the structure has no historical or cultural significance , the
structure was not currently serving a purpose, and the Commission would have
review of any new development. He shared that the catalyst for the demolition of
the structure was that a potential buyer wanted the structure to be demolished
before purchase of the property. He said the p otential buyer had plans for a new
residential development. Mr. Smith said part of his job as a hired contractor for
Pizza Hut was to go to restaurant locations and demolish or “de -brand” the
structures for sale. He shared that Pizza Hut’s current goal is to not have a dine-in
location in the United States in the next five years.
August 3, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE (Cont.) FILE NO.: HDC2023-022
9
Chair Jones opened the meeting to questions or comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Aleman said she believes the case meets the first condition for
demolition, which is the removal of the building for the purposes of public safety
and welfare. Aleman said the building has been vacant for a number of years and
there was a homicide in 2017 in the structure following a break in while vacant. Mr.
Smith said the structure has continued to have problems with break ins,
trespassing, and squatting and this has caused problems with getting the
necessary inspections, such as the asbestos inspection, completed. Ratzlaff
thanked Mr. Smith for his efforts to continue to secure and board the property as
required by City code. Mr. Smith said he believes Pizza Hut has spent nearly
$5,000 repairing and reboarding the property following break ins.
Chair Jones asked Mr. Smith when demolition would begin if permitting was
approved. Mr. Smith said, if approved by the Commission and with issued permits,
he could begin in 10 or so days and have it completed in two weeks. Commissioner
Nunn said the application seemed straightforward.
Commissioner Nunn made a motion to approve the application with Staff’s
recommendations and conditions. Chair Jones seconded the motion . The motion
passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
August 3, 2023
10
VII. Other Matters
1. Review of the By-Laws
Deputy City Attorney, Sherri Latimer, shared with the Commission that the by-
laws require review every three (3) years and they were last reviewed and
amended in 2020. She encouraged the Commissioners to submit to staff any
proposed changes or questions between now and the next meeting.
Commissioner Aleman asked for the Word version of the document to redline.
Ratzlaff said she could send out a Word version to everyone for them to submit
their proposed changes to staff.
Commissioner Aleman opened discussion about Section 6.a. of the by-laws
and discussed adding an exception that an item can be recalled at the meeting
it was voted on if all members of the Commission at the meeting agreed to the
recall. Latimer said to include this in the redline copy to staff and it can be
discussed at the next meeting.
August 3, 2023
11
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO COA Expirations
NAME: COA Conditions & Expirations
LOCATION: Ordinance Amendment to Little Rock Historic Preservation Code
APPLICANT: Staff
A. BACKGROUND
The implementation of expirations for approved COAs has been discussed at HDC
meetings since at least September 2006. Staff at this time had recommended time
limits and the Commission had approved them. The Staff/Commission ceased
doing so because it was determined that it was not in the power of the Commission
to do so without an ordinance revision. The Commission during this time decided
not to have time limits on the COAs.
In 2013, the Commission revisited COA expiration terms. It was determined by
legal counsel that the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code would need to be
amended via ordinance in order to set these terms and then the By -Laws would
need to be amended to include such actions. At the July 8, 2013 meeting, the
Commission approved changes to the code, shown below: (approved changes
shown as underlined text)
“Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
(a) COA Requirement. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light
fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected,
altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by
this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to
the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the
historic district commission.
(b) COA Expiration. A certificate of appropriateness shall expire if all permits
required for constructing or altering structures are not obtained within one (1)
year of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness. If all
required permits are obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval
of the certificate of appropriateness, the certificate of appropriateness shall be
valid as long as each permit remains valid. If a building permit or other permit
granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures is not required, a
certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for one year; and the project must
be completed within that one-year period. A six-month extension of a certificate
of appropriateness may be granted by the commission based on good cause
beyond the control of the applicant. All applications for extension of a certificate
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
12
of appropriateness must be submitted to the commission at least one (1) month
prior to expiration of the certificate of appropriateness.”
These changes are not in effect. There was no ordinance proposed to the Board
of Directors to revise this section of code.
Past Action & Discussion
Below are excerpts of the minute records of discussion on COA expirations:
From 9-11-06 minutes:
The topic of time limits for completion or commencement of COAs was discussed
by the Commission. It was decided by the Commission to add it to the Staff
Recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
From 10-13-08 minutes:
A discussion ensued on time conditions on COA’s, in particular, the vacant lot on
Rock Street by Answerfone. Mr. Minyard asked of Ms. Weldon if the time condition
ran out, would the applicant have to reappear before the Commission before
proceeding with work if there were no changes? She stated that the Commission
would have to give permission to Staff to do that. Chairman Peters asked if a
motion could be made to give permission to Staff to do so under dire
circumstances. Ms. Weldon asked who determined “dire circumstances”?
Chairman Peters said he had enough faith in Staff to do that. Mr. Minyard stated
that Staff would be changing the motion if the Staff changed the time condition.
Ms. Weldon said that she would look into it and was not sure that St aff could do
that. Chairman Peters said that some applications needed a time restraint where
others did not. Eve Gieringer stated that with the opposition to the house on Rock
Street, the neighbors are counting on the time constraint and could feel betra yed
by Staff If it was extended without their notification. The applicant should be
involved with the time condition and agree to such in the meeting. Commissioner
Bob Wood asked that the Commission be consistent in applying time conditions.
Ms. Weldon stated that different scales of projects would require different time
limits.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
13
From 1-12-09 minutes:
A discussion was held on the appropriateness of time limits with comments on
small, medium, and large projects. It was discussed by the Commission to not
have time limits on the Staff Recommendations or listed in the motion. It was
discussed that the Commissioners could ask of the applicant, during the hearing,
what the timetable was for the item. Page 10 of the report was discussed and the
other time limits of other boards and Commissions and building permits.
Commissioner Wiedower asked that the Commission be friendly and work with the
applicants on the time limits. The time limits do not affect the COA - the actual
projects look and materials. If a project drags on too long, Staff can put a Stop
Work Order on them when their building permit runs out.
After further discussion of the differing scales of projects, the Commission decided
that the Staff should not list time limits in the staff report and that the Commission
should not enforce time limits. The Commission can ask the applicant in the
hearing about the timeline. A note can be made to obtain a building permit in the
recommendation.
From 7-9-12 minutes
Statewide responses
Original email question:
Fellow Arkansas CLG Staff,
I have a question to ask all of you. My Commission was asking in the last meeting
about time limits on approved COA's. Our attorney's opinion is that there is no
time limit on execution of a COA. Please share your thoughts on how long your
COA’s are valid. Also, can a COA get an extension? Can staff administratively
approve the extension?
I have received comments from a lot of out -of-state folks, but they do not operate
under our state law.
Thanks in advance.
Comment from Patricia Blick, CLG Coordinator
It all depends on your code, if you have an expiration date specifically, or if there
is something generic in your city code that states, that board approvals are good
for _____ # of days.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
14
I’ll put this on the listserve and see what other folks say. In Annapolis, Maryland,
we had a 6-month limit, and we could extend it one time administratively then folks
had to come back for another hearing.
Don’t forget that with home rule now, local jurisdictions have more flexibility in
adopting ordinances that they need!
Eureka Springs issues COA for one year for any level of review. It can be
extended for six months by staff, then the process starts all over again.
North Little Rock’s COAs are valid for one year. If there is no change in the
scope of the project, we will re-issue.
Van Buren -
On our COA it states it is effective immediately upon issuance. Work must be
completed in 12 months of approval, and you may apply for a 6 -month
extension. Any work performed outside of the scope of the COA renders it null
and void. BTW, that extension has to go to the Commission for approval.
In Conway, we do not specify a time limit within our true locally recognized historic
district, the Robinson Historic District.
In our Old Conway Historic Overlay District, we specify a 1 -year time limit.
However, the overlay's time limit has proven to be impractical. I plan to amend our
ordinance to allow at least 2 years, if not more in the overlay area.
City of Fort Smith
Our ordinance says the following: (h) A certificate of appropriateness issued by
the historic district Commission shall become void unless work pursuant to the
certificate of appropriateness is commenced within one (1) year of the date of
issuance of the certificate of appropriateness, unless the historic district
Commission grants an extension to the certificate based on abnormal weather
conditions or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant which have
been shown to delay the approved work.
Further, staff cannot administratively approve the extension.
Nationwide responses
Original Question:
All,
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
15
One of our HDC’s asked the following:
My Commission was asking in the last meeting about time limits on approved
COA's. Our attorney's opinion is that there is no time limit on execution of a
COA. Will you poll/research the other Commissions concerning this?
Please share your thoughts on how long your COA’s are valid. Also, can a COA
get an extension? Can staff administratively approve the extension?
Thank you,
Patricia
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Our COA's are good for 6 months by ordinance. They can be renewed for an
additional 6 months as long as there are no changes in the proposed work. Staff
can administratively approve any extensions.
Wilmington, Delaware is the same as Kalamazoo.
Pueblo, Colorado
Our Commission wonders the same thing. One approach is that it’s unlimited;
another idea is that if it’s tied to a building permit it could expire when a building
permit expires (180 days here), but that’s difficult since our code is completely
silent on when they expire. If the work conforms to the code and they plan to do
the exact same project I wouldn’t see why there would be too much worry about it
taking some time or going invalid.
Manitou Springs, Colorado,
Our COA’s (which we call MCAC’s – Material Change of Appearance
Certifications) are valid for one year. This is consistent with the expiration of
zoning approvals. The reason for expiration is that circumstances and regulations
change and you don’t necessarily want someone resurrecting a 10 year old
approval when you might have adopted new guidelines, changed the ordinance,
or the property went from a noncontributing to a contributing status by virtue of
reaching that 50 year mark (or whatever standard exists in your jurisdiction).
We don’t have extensions at this time, although we have talked about maybe a 6
month administrative action.
City of Kenosha, Wisconsin
COA's are valid for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. We have that
language incorporated into our ordinance. If it's over 5 years, the applicant would
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
16
have to apply for a new COA and have the Historic Preservation Commission
approve it. Staff is unable to administratively extend it.
Montgomery County, MD,
COA’s do not expire. There I times I wish they did.
City of Fredericksburg, Virginia
Ours are good for six months from date of issue and can be renewed by the Board
for another six months. Once the related building permit is issued, then the COA
is tied to that permit and however long it remains valid.
Windsor, Connecticut
Our COAs are good for a period of 6 months - that's the period of time that a related
building permit would need to be pulled. Applicants can ask for up to a 6-month
extension either at the time of their COA hearing or at a subsequent meeting. It is
not currently within the staff's purview to approve the extension.
We have a fairly small historic district and the Commission only meets when COA
applications are submitted. We also don't charge a fee for applications or
extensions.
Norman, Oklahoma
We use the same system as Windsor, CT—6 months with one six-month
extension—effectively one year. As things stand right now, when an expired COA
comes back to the Commission for a re-review of the same project we do not
charge them a COA application fee, normally $75.
Laurel, Maryland
Ours expire in a year (if the work has begun, there is no expiration). Extensions,
yes. Staff approval, I don't think so.
Fort Wayne, IN
Our Certificates are generally good for a year and have the issue date and
expiration date on the Certificate. If the work hasn’t been completed in a year the
Certificate can be re-issued as long as the scope of work hasn’t changed.
City of Opelika, Alabama
When we issue a COA, the petitioner has 6 months which to begin project and 18
months to complete project. If work has not begun within the 6 months, an
extension has to be requested.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
17
City of Eustis, Florida
My City’s Ordinance specifies that work must commence within one year from the
date the COA is issued.
“Any certificate of appropriateness which has been approved pursuant to the
provisions of this section shall expire 12 months from the date of issuance if the
work authorized is not commenced within this period. Further, such certificate shall
expire if the work authorized is not completed within three years of the date of
issuance, unless otherwise extended by the board.”
Indianapolis, Indiana
Our COAs are good for one year from the issuance date. Staff can administratively
extend a COA up to one more year – as long as the scope of work hasn’t changed.
A filing fee of half the original fee is charged for the extension (example: a COA
issued with a filing fee of $50 would cost $25 for an extension).
The only exception to this is when we issue COAs to resolve violations. Depending
on the agreement we reach with a violator to correct work done without approval,
we may put a different expiration date (six months, nine months, etc.) on the COA
so the violation is addressed sooner rather than later.
Riverside, California is similar in that are COA’s have a time limit but it is 12
months and we indicate as such in our staff report as a Condition of Approval and
reiterate the time limit in our approval letter. If a time extension is requested, we
generally approve it for 1 year and require the case to go before the Board if
originally heard by the Board. However if the case was approved administratively
we approve the COA’s administratively.
We also do not charge a fee for our COA’s or time extensions of COA’s.
Tacoma, Washington
The City of Tacoma land use permit procedures outlined in ordinance gives 18
months for a Certificate of Approval/Appropriateness or the life of any permit
granted during that 18 months; extensions do not require additional application fee
and are generally treated as an administrative review unless the scope of the
project has changed in any way, or there is another reason to bring it to the full
Commission for another review.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2012
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
18
In response to a request by Commissioners in the June 2012 meeting, Staff polled
both statewide and national CLG’s to request times of expiration dates for COAs.
The above is a summary of the responses that were received.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if Staff was actively involved in gathering the
responses. Mr. Minyard responded that he polled the Commission in the statewide
responses and the nationwide responses came from the CLG coordinator at AHPP
via the listserv.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that the Van Buren model makes since to her.
He asked how many COA’s had been approved and not built. Mr. Minyard stated
that he had not looked at every individual file to see if the work had been executed.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked how far back the electronic files go to. Mr.
Minyard stated that the spreadsheet of activity (COA and COC) goes back to 1981.
The spreadsheet does not show whether the work was done or not. Commissioner
Wiedower stated that Staff has been modifying the spreadsheets for the last few
years to show what has been started and completed.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there was a difference in the time limits given
to different types of building permits. Debra Weldon stated she thought it was one
year and two year. There was a discussion if a COA could be issued and not
trigger a building permit. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if there was a way to
get a list of building permits for the last few years. Ms. Weldon stated the monetary
size of the project determines the time length of the permit.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked what would happen if the time limit for a COA
expired before the building permit expired. How would the legal Staff look upon
that. She stated that it would be a problem and that was the point in which the
conversations became circular in the work sessions. Commissioner Wiedower
suggested maybe approval of a COA expiring within 12 months unless a permit is
issued.
Ms. Weldon stated that this would most likely require an ordinance change to
institute time limits on COAs and maybe changing the state law. She stated that
the state has not addressed time limits, so as long as we are not in conflict with
the state, we could do that under the home rule act. The issue would be about the
building permits and time frames.
Mr. Minyard added that in one of the nationwide responses, your COA was
extended as long as you held a valid building permit. Commissioner Wiedower
asked about the people that get building permits and never start or finish
construction. Is the City aware of these permits? Mr. Minyard explained that the
permit holders request inspections, not the City asking the permit holders when
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
19
they are done. The only way to check would be to see who had not gotten final
inspections, however a final inspection is not that your building is finished. It
means that it passes health and safety checklists.
Mr. Minyard stated that for new buildings in the district, he flags the permits so that
he is there on inspections to catch things. He commented that that is how he
caught the window discrepancy on the cube house. He commented to a remark
that on one hand, if a project is deemed appropriate, it should be appropriate
forever, since we are in a historic district. On the other hand, there may be new
materials or new ways of construction that would make a project even more
appropriate today than before. Another question would be if the guidelines were
changed since the item was approved.
Commissioner Hendrix stated that the Staff needs more enforcement Staff. She
commented that COAs were like building permits, that people get them and never
do anything to the property.
Ms. Weldon stated that this was an excellent topic for a work session. Chairman
Vanlandingham asked if any of the Commissioners were opposed to leaving this
topic. The answer was no.
From 8-13-12 minutes:
Time limits on COA
An intern this summer worked on this spreadsheet and it will be presented to you
at the September hearing. The Commission can decide in September if this will
be a workshop issue or discuss it in the meeting.
From 9-10-12 minutes:
There was a discussion on looking at time limits on COA’s at a work session or
converting a meeting that does not have any items.
From 1-14-13 minutes:
Time Limits on COAs.
Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, made a presentation on the ongoing topic of
placing time limits on COAs. She referenced that Fredericksburg, Virginia and
Opelika, Alabama, gives the applicant “x” amount of time to get a permit and then
the permit gives them “x’ amount of time to finish it. She would suggest 6 months
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
20
to start and one year to complete the project. Our time limits would be combined
with the permit timelines. An additional six month could be granted for construction
for cause.
An action approved by a COA may or may not require a building permit, if not
started within six months, the COA would expire since t did not commence.
The building permit sets the time line. The COA is then tied to the building permit
for its expiration.
Below is the text from the memo from last year:
City of Fredericksburg, Virginia
Ours are good for six months from date of issue and can be renewed by the
Board for another six months. Once the related building permit is issued,
then the COA is tied to that permit and however long it remains valid
City of Opelika, Alabama
When we issue a COA, the petitioner has 6 months which to begin project
and 18 months to complete project. If work has not begun within the 6
months, an extension has to be requested.
From 2-11-13 minutes:
Commissioner Boaitey asked about the time limits on COAs and if it needed to be
added to the Guideline discussion. Debra Weldon asked if it was most appropriate
in the bylaws. It was discussed if we needed to attach the bylaws to the
applications. Maybe it would be included in the instruction pages.
From 5-13-13 minutes:
Time Limits for COAs
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about the time limits for COAs. He stated
that the guidelines have samples of COAs and instructions, if that changed what
would happen to the graphics of the instructions. Mr. Minyard stated that the
graphics would be updated with a new printing. Debra Weldon said that the
Commission has not voted on the item, and that a vote needs to be had on such.
She continued that the bylaws were the appropriate venue to implement a time
limit on COAs. Staff said that it would be on the agenda in June 2013 to discuss
the time limits questions and then to approve it in July.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
21
There was a discussion to approve the bylaws and the new guidelines at the same
meeting in July. A discussion on the June agenda would be appropriate.
Email from 5/31/13 Debra Weldon:
After closer inspection, it appears that the establishment of an expiration date for
COA’s will need to be submitted first as an ordinance to amend section 23 -115 of
the Little Rock Code. It can then be incorporated into the bylaws by the
amendment process and into the application for a COA. The Commission’s
guidance and formal recommendation are needed before an ordinance is
submitted to the Board of Directors.
Proposed language is attached for your review and, with your approval or changes,
for consideration by the Commission at their next meeting. At least one area
needs clarification: If the COA is to remain valid as long as the building permit (or
other permit) is valid – what do we do if more than one permit is required? For
example, what if the applicant must obtain a building permit and a fence permit;
the fence permit expires (but is no longer needed because the fence has been
completed) but the building permit is still valid. Does the COA expire? Should we
divide the COA into separate projects? Issue separate COA’s for each permit-
related project?
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
(a) COA Requirement. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light
fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered,
restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division
until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior
architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district
Commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the
commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for
purposes of constructing or altering structures.
(b) COA Expiration. A certificate of appropriateness shall expire if all permits
required for constructing or altering structures are not obtained within one (1) year
of the commission’s approval of the certificate of appropriateness. If all required
permits are obtained within one (1) year of the commission’s approval of the
certificate of appropriateness, the certificate of appropriateness shall be valid as
long as each permit remains valid. If a building permit or other permit granted for
purposes of constructing or altering structures is not required, a certificate of
appropriateness shall be valid for one year; and the project must be completed
within that one-year period. A six-month extension of a certificate of
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
22
appropriateness may be granted by the commission based on good cause beyond
the control of the applicant. All applications for extension of a certificate of
appropriateness must be submitted to the commission at least one (1) month prior
to expiration of the certificate of appropriateness.
From the CLR website pertaining to Building permits:
1. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $50,000
dollars or less and demolition permits shall expire one year from the date of
issuance. Extensions of up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be
granted for each permit. The request for extension must be in writing to the Building
Codes Division and must show just cause. A fee of $30.00 shall be accessed for
each ninety (90) day extension.
2. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $50,001 to
$500,000 dollars or more shall expire two years from the date of issuance.
Extensions of up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be granted for
each permit. The request for extension must be in writing to the Building Codes
Division and must show just cause. A fee of $50.00 shall be accessed for each
ninety (90 day extension.
3. All permits issued by the Building Codes Division with a valuation of $500,001
dollars or more shall expire three years from the date of issuance. Extensions of
up to ninety (90) days after the expiration date may be granted for each permit.
The request for extension must be in writing to the Building Codes Division and
must show just cause. A fee of $70.00 shall be accessed for each ninety (90) day
extension.
4. All permits shall become invalid if work authorized is not commenced within six
(6) months of permit issue date, or if the work authorized is suspended or
abandoned for a period of six (6) months after work is commenced. Before work
can be resumed, a new permit must be obtained. The permit fee shall be one-half
the amount required for a new permit, provided no changes have been made in
the original plans and specifications for such work, and provided that suspensions
or abandonment have not exceeded six (6) months.
5. A permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for a one -time extension,
provided he can show good and satisfactory reason, and beyond his control the
work cannot be commenced within the six (6) month period from the issue date. In
order to renew work on a permit after it has expired, the permittee shall pay a fee
in accordance with C(1).(2). Permittee shall pay a new, full permit fee in cases of
change in contractor.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
23
COMMISSION ACTION: June 10,
2013
Chairman Chris Vanlandingham commented that the wording of the text was wordy
and questioned if it could be shortened. Debra Weldon stated that it was the
language for the ordinance and needed to be stated as such. After discussion, it
was decided that the text of the guidelines and the text for the ordinance can be
different.
Commissioner Mark Brown suggested five years instead of 1 year to complete the
project. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked why. He replied that with a 3 year
permit and extensions now, it gave more time. Commissioner Ripley replied that
as printed, it was a moving target on completeness with the extensions. Ms.
Weldon stated that limiting time for completion could be conflicting with the building
permits.
There was a question on how many projects were out there. Brian Minyard stated
that an intern had started on that chart but did not complete it and it was a mess.
He could not answer with a definitive number.
Chairman Vanlandingham commented that the Commission makeup changes
over time and some Commissions are more lenient and some more strict when
approving COAs. He also noted that things change and an open ended approval
is against the idea of the Commission.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the percentages of projects completed, not
completed, withdrew, etc. as shown in the charts in the staff report. He also went
over the four most obvious issues as listed on the bottom of the previous page of
projects that were approved but not built. There was a brief discussion on the four
items on the previous page.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked of the nineteen that were not started (referencing
the first chart on the previous page) how many were over one year old. Mr.
Minyard stated that he believed it was a majority of them.
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
24
Commissioner Wiedower asked the Commissioners what they thought about the
verbiage that was presented. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if this could
interfere with anything (different permits on same site). Ms. Weldon replied that
the only permit that would be separate would be a miscellaneous permit. There is
a building permit issued for the project, and separate electrical, plumbing, hvac,
permits that are for those items. There is also a foundation only permit. All of
those are intertwined. The building permit has to be inspected last to get the
Certificate of Occupancy. The way it is written, you are waiting on the main building
permit for the Certificate of Occupancy to be signed. The sign permits are totally
separate from those.
Miscellaneous permits are for fences, walls and swimming pools. There was a
discussion on whether the text would work for a fence only miscellaneous permit,
since there is not a final inspection for fences. It was decided that it would work.
A fence can be included in the building permit but may be separate.
Sign permits are for five years and are ongoing for the lifetime of the sign.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked Commissioner Brown if this text would have
interfered with any of his projects, since he does work downtown. Mark Brown
replied no but he has never built anything from scratch. He says that it would not
have interfered with any of his remodels.
Commissioner Randy Ripley commented that for the average homeowner, that is
doing the work piecemeal, they may be affected by this change. But the
businessman, where time equals money, will not likely be affected.
Commissioner Wiedower stated the reason is to not have to keep track of outdated
COA’s (10 or 15 years worth). Material and technology changes occur during that
time frame which could affect the COA and the appearance of the project. If you
have not pulled a permit in one years’ time, you would have to start all over again.
Chairman Vanlandingham stated that Staff is understaffed and this could save time
and give more control over what is done.
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, said that if a permit was not required,
the project should be small and be able to be done in one year. Ms. Weldon asked
if there should be a provision for an extension. Chairman Vanlandingham asked
if this Commission needed to hear a six month extension. He was not thinking so.
He commented that the rules needed to be clear for the applicants.
Commissioner Toni Johnson suggested two years with no extension. Materials
and technology would not have changed so much in that time period. There was
a discussion of 2 years on permitted actions, 2 years on non -permitted actions and
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
25
no extensions on either. Mr. Minyard stated that most other CLGs have provisions
for an extension, either by Staff or Commission action. He continued that building
permits can get an extension with an additional fee. There was a discussion on
why the Commission does not have a fee.
Commissioner Wiedower said that if we went with a longer period with no
extensions, it would cut down on the text. Mr. Minyard stated that if you go to a two
year no extension, there needs to be text to say there is no extension. An
extension will make the Commission appear to be more friendly and willing to work
with the citizens. Staff will notify COA applicants before the expiration period via
a letter mailed to them. Staff commented that he would probably do a sixty day
notice. More discussion was held about the two year no extension option.
There was a discussion on whether a person did not execute the work as described
in the COA and if these time limits would affect that. Mr. Minyard said that it was
really two issues, enforcement versus the time limits and that one did not cancel
out the other.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked how to relate this to the people living in
district and how to make it beneficial to the average guy. Commissioner Wiedower
asked from a public relations standpoint, which would gain more favor from the
citizens. She said that she did not have a strong feeling one way or the other.
Commissioner Johnson said that if I knew I had 2 years, it would be on me, if I had
not done it.
Chairman Vanlandingham asked if the Commission wanted Staff to rewrite it for
the two year or vote on it as is tonight. Mr. Minyard said that an extension gives
an out, a work around, for the citizens.
Chairman Vanlandingham opened up the floor for a motion to approve as written.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve as written. Commissioner BJ
Bowen seconded and the motion was approved 7 ayes and 0 noes via voice vote.
The voice vote was requested by the Chair.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are currently no conditions set in the Little Rock Historic Preservation Code
for COA expirations or time limits for exercise of authorization.
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
26
Public notice has not been provided for this item. The commission cannot take
action on this item at this time. Future action can be set for the next scheduled
meeting and public notice requirements met.
E. ANALYSIS:
Staff has considered previous actions and discussions of the commission and
taken statewide and nationwide historic preservation commission regulations
under advisement. Additionally, the City’s existing procedures for other permits
have been considered. The Little Rock Zoning Code sets procedures for zoning
permit expirations, including additional actions of the Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustments. To be compatible with other Planning & Development
conditions of approvals, including conditional and special use permits , while also
recognizing the unique purpose and responsibilities of the Historic District
Commission, Staff believes clear, compatible, and specific procedures are
necessary for consistent and reliable treatment of projects.
There is a need to have a process which: handles both large-scale and small-scale
projects smoothly; does not disincentivize property maintenance and project
completion; and provides necessary public review for delayed impactful
developments.
Staff recommends consideration of the below revisions to the Little Rock Historic
Preservation Code:
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
1. COA Requirement. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light
fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected,
altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by
this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to
the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the
historic district commission.
2. Conditions. The commission may impose conditions upon the Certificate of
Appropriateness. Conditions must be stated within the commission’s motion of
approval. The violation of any condition so imposed shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the Certificate of Appropriateness and any related building
permits.
a. Conditions may include time limits for exercise of authorization. The
standard allowable time shall be one (1) year of the date of approval.
The maximum allowable time shall be three (3) years of the date of
approval and the time must be set within the commission’s motion of
approval. Required permits must be obtained within the allotted period
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
27
unless an extension of time is granted by the commission. Otherwise,
the Certificate of Appropriateness is considered void.
b. If a building permit or other permit is not required, a Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be valid for one (1) year, and the project must be
completed within that one (1)-year period. Otherwise, the Certificate of
Appropriateness is considered void.
c. A one-time six (6)-month extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness,
requiring or not requiring other permits, may be granted administratively.
If an additional or longer extension is requested, the commission may
grant a maximum one (1)-year extension based on good cause beyond
the control of the applicant. All applications for extension of a Certificate
of Appropriateness submitted to the commission must be submitted at
least one (1) month prior to expiration. An extension may only be granted
once by the commission, otherwise the Certificate of Appropriateness is
considered void.
d. An extension cannot be granted if there are changes to the approved
work.
e. A Certificate of Appropriateness is considered void when related
building permits expire.
f. Certificates of Appropriateness cannot be passed from owner to owner,
location to location.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the commission receive legal counsel on the proposed
ordinance revision, ask Staff to draft the revision in ordinance language with any
amendments concurred by voice vote, and set a public hearing date to consider
the proposed ordinance revision.
G. COMMISSION ACTION AUGUST 3, 2023
Staff, Ratzlaff, gave a presentation to the Commission. She shared that Sherri
Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, has likely not had enough time to review what she
has proposed, and that public notice will need to be provided for this item before
the Commission can take action. Latimer said she would also like to see what other
Arkansas CLG programs have concerning Certificate of Appropriateness
expirations as it is written in their city code. Sherri said staff will work together to
August 3, 2023
OTHER MATTERS NO.: TWO (Cont.) COA Expirations
28
present an ordinance amendment, in ordinance format, to the Commission at its
next meeting.
Chair Jones asked if there was a time limit on regular Building Code Division
permits. Ratzlaff said building permits expired a year after the date of issue.
Jeremy Gosdin, Planning Manager, said an extension of up to one (1) year could
be granted.
Commissioner Nunn said he felt that 2-3 years was warranted for some projects,
especially new construction, especially when an owner is required to pivot some
of their plans and designs based on conditions of approval. There was a discussion
about different timelines for different project types and the need for some flexibility.
Latimer encouraged the Commission to consider the discussion in detail for the
next meeting and to send any comments or suggestions to staff. A discussion took
place about time limits for different zoning permits.
Ratzlaff asked the Commissioners how they felt about staff being able to grant a
six (6)-month extension of a Certificate of Appropriateness administratively. Chair
Jones asked if the request would still have to go to the Commission if the scope of
work changed. Ratzlaff said it would. Commissioner Aleman asked about
demolition. Ratzlaff said demolition was something to consider treating differently.
Commission Fennell asked how long a demolition permit was active. Ratzlaff said
one year.
Commissioner Fennell said he was glad staff was taking this up to improve the
COA process and asked if expirations for Certificates of Compliance would be
treated the same. Ratzlaff said since they were administrative approvals, they
would be administrative extensions.
August 3, 2023
29
VII. Other Matters
3.Enforcement Issues
There were no enforcement issues to report.
4.Certificates of Compliance
There were no cases to report.
5.Citizen Communication
No citizens chose to speak during this time.
Ratzlaff shared with the Commission several updates. The City applied for the
National Park Service's Underrepresented Communities Grant and the
announcement of the awarded projects is scheduled for January 2024.
The State Review Board voted to recommend the nomination of the
Georgetown Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. The
nomination will now be reviewed at the federal level by the National Park
Service.
Stantec, the consultant for the nomination of University Park Historic District,
has submitted amendments to the nomination requested by the National Park
Service National Register reviewer.
VIII.Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and a second. The meeting ended at 4:53 p.m.
Attest:
Chair Date
Staff Date