204231...:;
aRM-.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
:$
2011023730 Received: 4/22 /2011 8:39:23 AM
Recorded: 04/22/201108:45:38 AM Filed &
Recorded in Official Records of Larry Crane,
PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT /COUNTY CLERK
Fees $25.00
ORDINANCE NO. 20,423
INANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 23 OF THE CODE OF
ICES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS,
PERTAINING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, citizens, neighborhood groups, other intersected parties participated in the development
of the City -Wide Historic Preservation Plan of 2009 in five (5) public meetings including presentations at
the Historic District Commission and the Board of Directors, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock Citywide Historic Preservation Plan of 2009 recommends to
"Increase Effectiveness of Preservation Agencies and Organizations" under which the Little Rock
Historic District is named, and;
WHEREAS, the Little Rock Historic District Commission appointed by the Mayor and the City
Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance in their regularly scheduled
meetings, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Ordinance is another step in implementing the City -Wide
Historic Preservation Plan of 2009, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
Section 1. That Chapter 23., Subsection 23 -116 be deleted in its entirety and replaced with new text
to read as follows:
23 Section 23 -116. Exemptions.
24 Nothing in this division shall:
25 (a) Prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in
26 the historic district created by this division, which does not involve a change in design,
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
material, or outer appearance thereof,
(b) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of
any exterior architectural feature in the historic district, which is not visible from a public
or private street.
(c) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of
any exterior architectural feature in the historic district which the building inspector or
other agent of the City shall certify is required to correct an unsafe or dangerous
condition; or
[Page 1 of 31
I (d) Prevent the construction, reconstructions, alteration, restoration or demolition of
2 any exterior architectural feature in the historic district under a permit issued by a
3 building inspector or similar agent of the City prior to the effective date of the
4 establishment of the historic district.
5 Section 2. That Chapter 23. Subsection 23 -116 be amended to provide for the deletion of certain text
6 and addition of new text to then to read as follows:
7 Sec. 23 -118. Public hearings and deferrals.
8 At the public hearing, the commission shall hear all persons desiring to present
9 information regarding the application. After such public hearing, the Historic District
10 Commission shall make its determination as to the appropriateness of the proposed
11 change. The commission may immediately announce its decision or defer the matter to
12 its next regularly scheduled Commission Meeting or reschedule the application for future
13 consideration at such other public hearings as are deemed necessary or desirable in order
14 to fully develop the facts and circumstances surrounding any one (1) particular
15 application. No application for a certificate of appropriateness for a purpose other than
16 demolition shall be deferred at the insistence of the Historic District Commission longer
17 than 100 days from the date of the first public hearing without consent of the applicant.
18 If the Commission has rendered no decision on the application for a purpose other than
19 demolition within 100 days from the time of the first public hearing, unless the applicant
20 has agreed to a further deferral or extension of time, the Commission shall consider the
21 application as having been approved and shall issue a certificate of appropriateness.
22 Section 3. Severability. In the event any portion of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be
23 invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of this
24 ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or
25 unconstitutional were not originally a part of this ordinance.
26 Section 4. Repealer. All ordinances and resolutions, and parts thereof, which are in conflict with any
27 provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
28 PASSED: April 19, 2011
29 ATTEST: APPROVED:
30
31
32 usan n , City Clerk Mark Stodola, Mayor
33
34
[Page 2 of 31
I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
2
3
4 Thomas M. Carpenter, City Att ney
5 H
6 H
7 H
8 H
9 H
10 H
11 H
12 H
13 H
14 H
15 H
16 H
17 H
18 H
19 H
20 H
21 H
22 H
23 H
24 H
25 H
26 H
27 H
28 H
29 H
30 H
31 H
32 H
33 H
34 H
[Page 3 of 31
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 10, 2011
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Ordinance Revisions - Exemptions
In the 1981 Historic Preservation ordinance, there is the following language in what was then
Section 23 -132 Certificate of appropriateness — Generally (Sec 23 -132 (d)) which states: "A
certificate of appropriateness is not required for repairs, alternations, new construction, moving
or demolitions that are not visible from the street or streets which abut subject property." This
language was inadvertently excluded in the ordnance that was revised in May of 2007.
If language were added to the current ordinance to address that, it would be inserted in Sec 23-
116. Exemptions. Currently, the wording is as follows:
Section 23 -116. - Exemptions.
Nothing in this division shall:
(a) Prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in
the historic district created by this division which does not involve a change in
design, material, or outer appearance thereof, nor to prevent the construction,
reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any such feature which the
building inspector or other agent of the City shall certify is required by the public
safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition.
(b) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration or demolition of
any such feature under a permit issued by a building inspector or similar agent of the
city prior to the effective date of the establishment of the historic district.
Staff has reworded this section to divide it into four (4) sections. The sections address the
following issues in his order: a) Regular maintenance; b) Those items not visible from abutting
streets; c) health safety issues; and d) those built prior to the establishment of the district.
Section 23 -116. Exemptions.
Nothing in this division shall:
(a) Prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in
the historic district created by this division, which does not involve a change in
design, material, or outer appearance thereof;
(b) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of
any exterior architectural feature in the historic district, which is not visible from a
public or private street.
(c) Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of
any exterior architectural feature in the historic district which the building inspector or
other agent of the city shall certify is required to correct an unsafe or dangerous
condition; or
(d) Prevent the construction, reconstructions, alteration, restoration or demolition of
any exterior architectural feature in the historic district under a permit issued by a
1 of 4
building inspector or similar agent of the City prior to the effective date of the
establishment of the historic district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 8. 2010
Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that since 2007, the
Commission had been operating without that provision. Debra Weldon of the City Attorney's
Office suggested that the two (2) sections be broken into four (4) sections.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked why the exact language of the older ordinance was not
recommended to be used it new update. Mr. Minyard responded that, in an academic
discussion, in a block devoid of trees and houses, the first house would have all four (4) sides of
that structure visible from a street. All four (4) sides would have an effect on the district. If there
is only one vacant lot in the interior of the block, the rear facade will not be seen at all and the
side facades will be seen somewhat and the front facade will be most important. The district
has half blocks that are totally devoid of trees and houses. In addition, we have two, three, and
four lots that are abutted by Highway Department land, so those facades will always be visible
from a street. Since 2005, the Commission has been looking at all (4) four sides of new
structures. On rehabs, the Commission has been reviewing rear facades when visible from a
street. The Commission has in effect been reviewing structure as stated in the new language.
The new language gives you more review.
Commissioner Randy Ripley commented on why the word street was used instead of the word
public right -of -way. Mr. Minyard stated that alleys are public right -of -way and that would involve
reviewing rear facades of buildings even when in the interior of the blocks. This review would
be more contrary to how the Commission has been practicing review on structures and contrary
to the old language. Commissioner Ripley continued that some things would be visible from
one angle but not from the other and how that would be rectified as to review or not. Trees in
full leaf or not could make a difference.
Previous actions before the Commission was discussed. Commissioner Wiedower mentioned
the Ratcliff House with the rear facade clearly visible from Main Street. She felt that this would
be holding different property owners to different standards. Chairman Peters motioned houses
on corner lots, taller houses, etc. and stated that some need to have more governance than
others do. Commissioner Wiedower asked if a survey could be made of other districts. Mr.
Minyard stated that we could ask Patricia Blick since they probably have those copies in their
files already. Ms. Blick agreed to do so.
Mr. Minyard stated that as the Commission reviews cases on a case -by -case basis, they weigh
factors unique to that property. At that time, the commissioners decide, on an individual basis, if
they believe if one side is not as visible as the other and have the responsibility to factor that
into your vote and bring that into the discussion. Chairman Peters warned that we should be in
conformance with the state laws. He also was weary of drastic modifications to rear facades
that were visible from other streets that were not abutting, for example the Ratcliff House that is
visible from Main Street. Commissioner Wiedower reiterated her point that this would be
holding different property owners to different standards.
Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked why this topic was being discussed at this point in time
and if it was to accommodate someone. Commissioner Wiedower stated that it was left out of
2 of 4
the ordinance when it was updated. Mr. Minyard stated that this was brought up in the October
2010 meeting. Ms. Blick commented on how things are handled in Maryland. Chairmen Peters
stated that the state law permits 360 - degree review.
Mr. Minyard stated that this item would reappear on the December agenda for your
consideration.
STAFF UPDATE: December 13, 2010
The State enabling legislation does not state a condition based on visible from a right -of -way or
street on facades to review. A quote from the State legislation is in the attached letter on the
last page. This leaves the decision up to the individual commissions to state, or not State, in
their ordinance, which facades they will review.
Attached is a copy of the letter from Patricia Blick, CLG coordinator from the AHPP. She
surveyed the fourteen (14) CLG's and received responses from eight (8) of them. Three (3)
specifically state the word right -of -way in their ordinance and two (2) state that the historic
preservation officer is charged with determining what is visible from a public right -of -way. Van
Buren's ordinance states the "'exterior' of a structure shall include the front fagade, the back
facade, the exposed side wall of a corner building and any exposed side wall or a two (2) or
three (3) -story building." Please note that the Van Buren District is a purely a commercial
district. North Little Rock, not covered in the letter, reviews the backs of structures because
alleys are considered public right -of -ways. They have had cases where the proposed
improvements are visible from a street that does not abut.
The Little Rock HDC has reviewed the backs of buildings previously. In a search of all COA's
approved since January 2005, results are as follows:
A) Thirteen (13) new structures in which all four (4) facades were presented to the
Commission for review. These include all new structures, houses, apartments, police
stations, and church facilities.
B) Three (30 COA's for additions or renovations to the rear of the buildings that were
reviewed by the Commission. For example: the Rainwater Building's rear fagade was
reviewed since the rear fagade is clearly visible across the parking lot from Sixth Street,
an addition of a large dock door at 9th and Rock Streets on an interior side lot line with a
vacant lot adjacent tot the improvements, and the addition to the Fish Factory at 12th
and Scott Streets to the rear of the building but visible across their parking lot to the
Street.
C) Six (6) COA's that had elements that included the entire house and were reviewed.
These include whole house siding, window, and gutter replacement COA's.
D) One (1) action that added space to the back of the structure that was not visible from the
street and was not reviewed as part of the application. This was on South Commerce
Street where the COA was for "Addition to rear of house, roof replacement, siding
replacement, picket fence in front with arbor and exterior lighting." The Commission
reviewed everything but rear fagade of the house. However, the Commission did reduce
the width of the addition on the house to be less than the width of the entire house, so
that the addition read as an addition.
The construction of new buildings should be held to a higher scrutiny than the modifications to
existing structures as evidenced in the practice of the Commission since 2005. The
Commission should review all sides of new construction because in certain instances, all four
(4) sides of the structures are visible from public and private streets because of vacant lots. The
Commission should review all visible facades regardless of whether the trees have leaves on
3 of 4
them or not. Since the Commission reviews items on a case -by -case basis, the Commission
can weigh factors unique to that property into the review. At the hearing, the commissioners
should decide, on an individual basis, if they believe if one side is not as visible as the other and
have the responsibility to factor that into your vote and bring that into the discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of text submitted earlier.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 13, 2010
It was noted for the record that Commissioner Hendrix had left the room and was out of the
room during this vote only.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ripley to defer the item to the January meeting and was
seconded by commissioner Vanlandingham. The motion passed with 3 aye votes and 2 absent
(Commissioner Wiedower and Hendrix).
COMMISSION ACTION: January 31, 2011
Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission and covered the Staff update
thoroughly.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if section D in the proposed text could be removed. Mr.
Minyard said he questioned it himself and Ms. Weldon stated that it was the original language.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham stated that he thought it was a moot point, but was
compelled to leave it in. Mr. Minyard stated that it should not be deleted in case at some point
in the future, another local ordinance district was included in the ordinance. At that time, section
D would be necessary.
Commissioner Randy Ripley made a motion was made to approve the ordinance revisions as
stated and Commissioner Wiedower seconded. Mr. Minyard asked if the motion was to approve
4 sections as submitted. The answer was yes. The motion passed with five aye votes.
4 of 4
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. E.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Ordinance Revisions — Time Frame
The City -Wide Preservation Plan of 2009 recommended that the commission be increased to
seven or nine members as stated on pages 90-91 in the Preservation Plan. This proposed
change is a first step to implement this Plan.
Section 1. Subsection 23 -97(a) of the Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code of Ordinances (1988) is
hereby amended to increase the number of Historic District Commissioners from five (5) to
seven (7), to establish numbered positions for the Historic District Commission members, and to
read as follows:
(a) The historic district commission shall consist of seven (7) members who shall be
electors of the City holding no salaried or elective municipal office. Each member shall
be appointed by the board of directors to fill one of the following positions:
Position 1: Owner of Property located in the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Position 2: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in the MacArthur Park
Historic District.
Position 3: Architect.
Position 4: Quapaw Quarter Association Representative selected from a list of three
(3) candidates submitted by the Quapaw Quarter Association Board of
Directors.
Position 5: At Large.
Position 6: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in a National Register
Historic District other than the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Position 7: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in a National Register
Historic District other than the MacArthur Park Historic District.
The other issue arose from the work plan and is the ninety (90) -day mandate to approve an
item. After discussion by the commission, it was felt that three (3) regularly scheduled meetings
was more appropriate than the ninety (90) days. For example, from the February 2010 meeting
till the May 2010 meeting is ninety -one (91) days and from the March 2010 meeting till the June
2010 meeting is ninety -eight (98) days due to longer months. This would force the item to be
acted upon in approximately sixty (60) days, or two (2) hearings, instead of ninety (90) days.
The state statute says in section 14- 172 -209 (b)2 that the Commission shall act within a
reasonable amount of time. This section must be changed in the ordinance before the bylaws
can be changed to reflect this. The proposed text is as follows:
Sec. 23 -118. Public hearings and deferrals.
At the public hearing, the Commission shall hear all persons desiring to present information
regarding the application. After such public hearing, the Historic District Commission shall make
its determination as to the appropriateness of the proposed change. The commission may
immediately announce its decision or defer the matter to its next regularly scheduled
Commission meeting or reschedule the application for future consideration at such other public
hearings as are deemed necessary or desirable in order to fully develop the facts and
circumstances surrounding any one (1) particular application. No application for a certificate of
appropriateness for a purpose other than demolition shall be deferred at the insistence of the
Historic District Commission longer than RiR 100 days from the date of the first
public hearing without consent of the applicant. If the Commission has rendered no decision on
the application for a purpose other than demolition within ninety- (90) dais 100 days from the
time of the first public hearing, unless the applicant has agreed to a further deferral or extension
of time, the Commission shall consider the application as having been approved and shall issue
a certificate of appropriateness.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
The Commission briefly discussed the item. A motion was made by Commissioner Julie
Wiedower and was seconded by Commissioner Randy Ripley. The motion passed with a vote
of 5 ayes.
4