Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-19 936 CHNI meeting scheduled email1 Ratzlaff, Hannah K. From:Ratzlaff, Hannah K. Sent:Friday, August 19, 2022 9:36 AM To:'Denise L' Subject:RE: Central High Moratorium Attachments:HD LOD and DOD comparison.pdf; Little Rock, AR Code of Ordinances- Central DOD.pdf Denise, Sounds great! I’ve got it on my calendar. The best resource for the LOD discuss is the current LOD report available online: https://www.littlerock.gov/business/planning-and-development/boards-commissions/local-ordinance-district/. The best resource for the Design Overlay District discussion is attached. Included is a comparison chart of the existing historic district, the existing Design Overlay District, and the proposed Local Ordinance District (map included), as well as the existing ordinance for the Design Overlay District. I’d like to discuss with the group what they believe are the benefits and negatives of the existing Design Overlay District based on the impact of those regulations since they were enacted in 2009. For example, are the tree preservation and tree planting standards making a positive difference to the area? Are new construction projects compatible with the district and do they have a positive design impact to the neighborhood? Basically, what standards in the DOD ordinance are worth keeping? Thanks, Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer & Historic District Commission Staff Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 From: Denise L <dannleeson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:37 PM To: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> Subject: RE: Central High Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hannah, 2 September 8th will be great. We’ve just changed our meeting format. Odd number months are to be business meetings, primarily for the officers; however any member is welcome to attend/participate. Might you have thought about specific talking points that I can email to our list in advance? That way, those attending will be more prepared to participate. Thank you, Denise Sent from Mail for Windows From: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:47 AM To: Denise Leeson Subject: RE: Central High Moratorium Denise, Let’s plan to discuss at your September 8th meeting. Is this a meeting of only officers or with all neighborhood residents? Thanks, Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer & Historic District Commission Staff Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 From: Denise Leeson <dannleeson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:50 PM To: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> Subject: Re: Central High Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hannah, As ours is a volunteer organization, its unlikely we'll be able to get officers in a meeting during working hours. Our VP is retired, thus has a schedule more flexible than some. I'm off work this Friday. Would you like to meet then? I can ask if our VP, Paul, and a few others (retired and/or self-employed) can join us. Otherwise, there's always our meeting on September 8 at 6:30. Thank you, Denise On Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 1:23 PM Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> wrote: 3 Denise and Paul, We are at the point of the proposed local ordinance district process where we are drafting changes to the City’s Historic Preservation ordinances to submit before the Board when it comes time. One thing we are considering is keeping the Central High Design Overlay District ordinance active (rather than repealing it) while the future historic district guidelines (tailored to the LOD district) would supersede it. There are multiple reasons for this path, considering the large portion of blocks to the West of the high school that are within the DOD b ut would not be within the proposed LOD. I doubt we would want to lose the DOD standards there. At the same time, two layers of regulation that overlap with standards would need to be handled carefully so that review expectations are clear. I’d like to set up an informal discussion (can be in person or virtual) with the Central High neighborhood association leadership (or whomever you’d like to include) to discuss the benefits and negatives of keeping the existing DOD in place. To get feedback and think together. I’d like to make sure that the regulations that result here are to the best benefit to the neighborhood and the future development it would like to see. Attached is a map of the two regulatory areas for a good visual. Please let me know if you’d like to have this discussion with staff and when a good time would be? Thanks, Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer & Historic District Commission Staff Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 From: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 3:54 PM 4 To: 'Denise L' <dannleeson@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Central High Moratorium Good afternoon Denise, I wanted to follow back up with you concerning the upcoming proposal to establish a local ordinance district for the Central High Neighborhood Historic District. A good portion of the Central High Neighborhood Association residents live, or own property, within the proposed LOD boundaries. I want to make sure that people who are affected by this possible change have opportunities to ask questions of staff, comment on the proposal, and are aware of upcoming public hearings. Currently, the proposal is set to be heard by the Historic District Commission on October 6 th. Staff will be sending out letters to property owners about three weeks before the public hearing. Public notice will also be in the Daily Record newspaper. And, if anyone would like to keep updated online, the HDC has a social presence now. Following the hearing, the proposal (if approved by the HDC) will go before the Board of Directors at a later date (TBD). Before we get farther in this process, is there a time that planning staff can meet with the Central High NA leadership to discuss the proposal and answer any questions? If there is a possibility that the association would like staff to present at a neighborhood meeting, we would also like to go ahead and get it in our calendars. Thanks, Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer & Historic District Commission Staff Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 5 From: Denise L <dannleeson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 6:00 PM To: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> Subject: RE: Central High Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hannah, I’m so glad you’re familiar with the neighborhood and know Paul. At tonight’s meeting, we’ll briefly talk about the moratorium and the OLD proposal. Surely, there will be questions and comments that I can share. Denise Sent from Mail for Windows From: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:47 AM To: Denise Leeson Cc: Paul Dodds Subject: RE: Central High Moratorium Denise, Great to meet you virtually, looking forward to meeting with you in person at some point! My first home in Little Rock was actually one of Paul’s rentals across the street from Central High School a few years ago. I had a wonderful time living in the neighborhood and am familiar with Paul’s investments throughout. Paul’s comments, in my experience, are always worthy of consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the two initiatives (the moratorium and the LOD proposal) before we are able to get together. I’m happy to assist. 6 Thanks, Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 From: Denise Leeson <dannleeson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 10:57 AM To: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> Cc: Paul Dodds <paul@dodds.us> Subject: Re: Central High Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hannah, Paul is a respected owner of numerous properties in our neighborhood, whose years of advocacy and rehabbing have added inestimable value to our neighborhood. If you are unfamiliar with Paul's work, you would be well served by driving by a few of his properties. Paul is an inspiration and an invaluable resource to others who wish to live and invest in our neighborhood. Paul's years of experience provide him with knowledge that results in the types of thoughtful comments he provided in his email. I'm confident you will also find his comments worthy of consideration as amendments to the resolution being put before the Board on the 19th. 7 I look forward to working with you. Denise On Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 10:22 AM Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> wrote: Good morning Paul, Thanks for reaching out! I’m happy to receive your comments. To clarify, the moratorium is going before the Board of Directors on July 19 th. It is not a Planning Commission item. The agenda item for today on the Planning Commission concerning the Central High Neighborhood Historic District is a first look (non-voting item) at a proposal to establish a local ordinance district (“LOD”) for the CHN historic district. The City is following the procedures set out by the Arkansas General Assembly (A.C.A § 14-172-203) and the City’s own Historic Preservation ordinance (Sec. 3 Article IV). The process requires a strong amount of public communication and, as staff to the HDC, I am eager to have as much input as possible. The purpose of the proposal is certainly to support the district in its aims. The LOD process requires the composition of a report, which is now available on the City’s website: https://www.littlerock.gov/business/planning-and-development/boards- commissions/local-ordinance-district/. The report will likely go through a number of drafts on its way to the Board of Directors with an accompanying ordinance. Please feel free to review the report! To give internal context, and the report speaks to this, the impetus for the LOD proposal came from the concern by staff for the National Register condition of the district. After recognizing the number of demolitions and alterations that have occurred since the last survey in 2012, we conducted an in-house analysis of the district based on permit data, the 2012 NR data, and consultation with AHPP’s NR team. The results were worrisome. Bringing this to attention, leadership in our department as well as City management, were sympathetic and eager to move forward with solutions to avoid the loss of the district and loss of property owner access to rehabilitation economic tools. As we moved forward with preparing the LOD proposal, we discussed with other historic preservation officers in the nation, that I have contact with through NAPC, possible obstacles they have experienced. We found that many utilized a moratorium on demolitions while an LOD was being proposed. They utilized this to discourage a “rush” in permitting that could add more harm to the district. I truly appreciate your comments on the moratorium resolution, and I’ll bring attention to these points for the draft leading to the July 19 th Board meeting, that is: the recognition of rehabilitations approved by the NPS Part 2 for tax credits that have not yet applied for permits, Historic District Commission involvement, code officer training, NR status consideration in staff review, standards surrounding damaged structure, and neighborhood engagement. To address a few of your comments: 1.To clarify the role that the HDC would take in the review process outlined in Section 5 of the proposed resolution, it is only HDC staff (myself) that will take part in this review and provide recommendations to the 8 Board. No applications would go to the HDC for public review. That would be putting the cart before the horse, I agree. I believe this clarification would also address your concerns in the last paragraph of point 1 of your email below. Please correct me if you were referring to a different issue. Concerning code officers, historic preservation education is in the plans internally for Central High, and MacArthur Park as well. I’m not sure what our previous practices have been with code enforcement but I certainly agree there is a need and opportunity there. Concerning the support of non-contributing structures becoming contributing structures, this will be one of the main considerations in staff review. I agree that making these types of projects administrative review only would be supportive of the larger goal. I will bring this comment forward with the rest. 1.Concerning structures that are damaged following the adoption of the resolution, this is a strong point. There would certainly be a review process with our staff to determine this case by case. I’m happy to explore ways of using the moratorium as an incentive for the use of HTC and AHPP grants while still allowing those property owners—who typically care for their buildings and have incurred damages like a tree falling— to seek the permits required to address damages. 1.We have reached out to both neighborhood associations concerning the LOD proposal and the moratorium once the items were officially put on the proper agendas. I completely agree that neighborhood engagement should be robust. We have asked both associations how they would like us to engage with their organization and are happy to provide presentations. @Denise Leeson, I believe you invite us to your potluck tonight! I don’t believe Walter or I can make it with Planning Commission being tonight depending on when it ends, but I am sad to miss out. I believe you are coordinating with Walter and I on a best time to meet and discuss the LOD proposal. There will be a number of public meetings for the LOD report and ordinance. Planning Commission will be hearing the LOD draft report this afternoon (as a non-voting item). This will be a task for me to educate them on what is being asked of them, as well as historic preservation efforts in general. Paul, if you would like your comments included on the moratorium resolution item, you will need to submit them to the City Clerk’s office or to your representative board member. Here is a link to the clerk’s contact information: https://www.littlerock.gov/city-administration/cityclerksoffice/. Thank you again for your comments, 9 Hannah Ratzlaff Urban Designer Planning & Development, 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 hratzlaff@littlerock.gov 501-371-4789 From: Paul Dodds <paul@dodds.us> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 11:38 PM To: Ratzlaff, Hannah K. <hratzlaff@littlerock.gov> Cc: Denise Leeson <dannleeson@gmail.com> Subject: Central High Moratorium Dear Hannah, I wanted to submit comments on the draft demolition moratorium and external building permit limit ordinance that is on the agenda for the Planning Commission tomorrow. I generally support and welcome the ordinance, but would like to submit two substantive and one procedural comment. 1. External Building Permit Limits: While I generally support the idea of external building permit limits, I am concerned that the procedure is unnecessarily burdensome and that applying Historic District Commission standards as a first step could lead to real resistance. Instead of having a blanket requirement like the one proposed, I would urge that the ordinance instead focus on maintaining and increasing the number of contributing structures to the District, and on encouraging certified historic rehabilitations. The ordinance does not do this, thus missing a real opportunity. I know of several planned historic tax credit projects in the neighborhood that could be negatively impacted by the external building permit limits. This unintended consequence would only undermine the goals of the ordinance. 10 Instead of requiring all people wanting to do external renovations to seek full City Board approval, after staff and Historic District Commission review and comment, the ordinance should exempt from its ban any projects that have an approved National Park Service Part 2 Historic Tax Credit Application. These projects should be permitted to go forward subject only to a requirement that the project be completed according the terms of the NPS or State approved application (for non-Federal HTC projects). The owners should submit a copy of this approval and the application to Planning staff, not to the whole HDC. Code officers should be made aware of these terms, be given training in historic rehabilitations and help ensure project completion in accordance with NPS standards. Next, the ordinance should be used to help make non-contributing structures contributing ones. I have converted several properties in the Historic District from non-contributing to contributing status, including most recently the unsafe and vacant 1721-23 Dennison. In that case, all it took was the removal of some cheap paneling around an enclosed porch. The ordinance should recognize the possibility of and need to convert non-contributing structure to contributing status. Applicants seeking an exemption for any property built during the period of historic significance should be also be able to benefit from a simplified staff level approval procedure, if they own a property that can be made contributing - if they are willing to do so. Active City staff engagement with applicants, helping them work with the AHPP to make a property contributing, can increase, and not just stop the loss, of historic properties. Once it is contributing, the applicant would then be able to get a permit on staff approval, once its HTC Part 2 receives NPS or State approval. My understanding is that HDC has quite different and more burdensome guidelines than those required by the National Park Service. If the goal is to help encourage owners to retain historic properties and defend the district’s Federal status, the NPS standards, as interpreted by the Department of Arkansas Heritage are sufficient and should be applied. If the Historic District Commission wishes to have a role in review, I would urge that the review be limited to ensuring that contributing structures, or properties that could be made contributing structures with historically appropriate changes, not be changed in ways that would jeopardize their contributing structure status. This should be the only review purpose. While the historic district might sometime be at a point where full HDC review of projects according to their standards would be accepted by most owners and residents, we are not there yet. Let’s not get distracted, and stick just with defending our Federally recognized status. 2. Damaged Structures: I do not like the “damaged structures” loophole in Section 3. It is vague and could have the perverse incentive of encouraging people to damage their properties to get a building permit. It is not clear what it is trying to accomplish, and provides no standards for what kind of damage would trigger an exemption and why. It should certainly NOT be linked to the City’s existing and opaque standards for finding properties unsafe and vacant. I have renovated a number of UV homes, many of which had had fire damage - and all of which are contributing structures the historic district. Just because there is a fire or a tree falls on a house is not a reason to give an owner a pass. So many of the houses in the area are in such poor repair, that repairing this moderate fire, tree or other damage can be only a small fraction of the total cost needed to bring a building fully back. Using the ordinance to nudge owners of damaged historic properties into undertaking certified historic rehabilitations, rather than permitting poor and minimal repairs that ruin the property’s contributing status, can lead to real neighborhood stabilization. For example, I bought the historic T.H. Miller House fourplex at 2017-2019 W. 17th St. after a fire 11 put a stop to its long term crack house/ very shabby rental use. The house was terribly run down before the fire, and I estimate that repairing the fire damage added less than $15,000 to the overall $280,000 project investment costs. Rather than letting damage to an historic property be an excuse for yet another minimal slumlord “remuddling", use it as a way to help owners get HTC funds, and really improve the neighborhood. Again, this is a place where the ordinance really should serve an educational and incentivizing function, but fails to do so. 3. Procedural Concerns: I am copying the president of the Central High Neighborhood Association on this letter. I have not previously heard of the draft, though I am quite actively engaged with the association and planning efforts in the area. While I am generally pleased that someone is undertaking this effort, my sense is that it could benefit from more neighborhood engagement. I do not know if this was presented to the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association, which also includes a large part of the Central High National Historic District. Both WANA and CHNI should be included in this discussion. Have there been any public meetings held on this draft? If so, can you please provide the notices, notes, presentations and attendance records? Again, in general I am glad to see it, albeit somewhat surprised. Thanks very much for permitting me to make this input, and please let me know if I need to do anything further to have this included as a formal comment. Yours truly, Paul Dodds Managing Director Urban Frontier LLC 501 791 4135