Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2006-011 CORRESPONDENCEr y `i LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC U, DISTRICT COMMISSION Mr. Brian Gray PDIC Investments, LLC PO Box 1912 Benton, AR 72018 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Re: 420 East Ninth Street Complex Signage Dear Mr. Gray: 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 June 1, 2005 The City Attorney's office has advised that the issuance of a sign permit by the Department of Planning and Development does not waive compliance with Little Rock Code provisions regulating signs. Subsections "k" and "1" of Little Rock Code Section 36-545 address this compliance requirement From the Little Rock Municipal Code, Regarding Signs. Sec. 36-545. Permit. (k) The issuance of a sign permit shall in no instance be construed as waiving any provision of this chapter. If any person commences work on a sign before obtaining the necessary permit, or if a permit issued despite the violation of any provision of this chapter, or if the location or specifications of the sign vary from the approved design or location, the person shall be subject to the penalty prescribed in section 1-9 of this Code and the sign shall be removed as an illegal sign as provided in section 36-536 of this chapter. (1) In addition, the administrator shall revoke a sign permit for failure of the holder to conform with any of the provisions of this chapter. All rights and privileges acquired under the provisions of this chapter, or any amendment thereto, are mere licenses revocable at any time. Therefore, even though you have obtained a permit for installation of the sign at your apartment complex, you must still comply with the requirements of the MacArthur Park Historic District ordinance. You will need to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness, which will determine if your current sign is appropriate for the historic district. The filing deadline for the next hearing (July 14, 2005) is June 2, 2005. Our department will work with you if you have questions regarding appropriate sign designs. We encourage you to look at examples within the Historic District, most notably "Answerphone" on the 600 block of Rock Street. Charles Bloom Historic District Staff DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT €' LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Memo To: Debra Weldon From: Charles Bloom CC: Tony Bozynski 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Date: 6/30/2005 ra 420 East Ninth Street —Timeline of Events January 2005: Staff had been in contact with the applicant at the request of the Housing department so the applicant could get a Certificate of Occupancy for units within the building. The Certificate of Occupancy would allow for the continuance of its non -conforming use as a seven unit apartment building. Part of the condition for a Certificate of Occupancy was compliance with the Little Rock Historic District Commission. At the time it was noted that air conditioning units had been installed on the exterior windows of the property and needed to be removed or a COA needed to be filed. The applicant filed a COA to allow 7 Window Air Conditioning units, later withdrew the application and took the units down. February 2005: Staff noted that a sign was on the property after a complaint from an area resident. The sign indicated that apartments were "for rent." Staff was unaware of whether or not the sign was temporary or permanent. Staff concluded that the sign was not temporary due to its construction style, installation, placement, and existence since units were occupied. March 2005: A letter was sent to the applicant dated March 2, 2005 informing him that he needed to contact staff regarding the sign. Upon the applicant's receipt of this letter I received a phone call from Brian Gray. His response was that he had a permit and so the sign was approved. I said that the permit was issued in error and Commission approval was still needed. He had no response to that statement. Closing the phone call I said we would research the permitting process and contact him at a later time regarding the sign. April 2005: Further research on the issue resulted in City Attorney Debra Weldon noting that section "36-545. Permits" was relevant to this case: "(a) Unless otherwise provided by this chapter, all signs shall require permits and payment of fees as described in this section. No permit is required for the maintenance of a sign or for a change of copy on painted, printed or manual changeable copy signs. (k) The issuance of a sign permit shall in no instance be construed as waiving any provision of this chapter. If any person commences work on a sign before obtaining the necessary permit, or if a permit issued despite the violation of any provision of this chapter, or if the location or specifications of the sign vary from the approved design or location, the person shall be subject to the penalty prescribed in section 1-9 of this Code and the sign shall be removed as an illegal sign as provided in section 36-536 of this chapter. (I) In addition, the administrator shall revoke a sign permit for failure of the holder to conform with any of the provisions of this chapter. All rights and privileges acquired under the provisions of this chapter, or any amendment thereto, are mere licenses revocable at any time. " This meant that the issuance of a sign permit does not exempt him from additional rules and regulations that may be in an area and he would still need to file for a COA. May 2005: A letter was drafted to send to Brian Gray noting that we had sought advice from the City Attorney's Office regarding the sign issue. After correspondence from the City Attorney's Office the letter was finalized. June of 2005: One June 1, 2005 the letter was sent to Brian Gray noting that we had sought advice from the City Attorney's Office regarding the sign issue. The letter quoted wording from the Ordinance, noting he was still required to file for a COA and get permission from the Commission. Also this letter offered ideas for a replacement sign if he decided to file a COA application. The sign mentioned as an example is located on the 600 block of Rock Street for a business, Answerfone. This sign is typical of ones used in the District. There is still no response to the follow up letter requesting he contact the office regarding the sign on his property, On May 23rd I contacted the City Attorney's office regarding enforcement proceedings. I prepared all relevant data to the City Attorney's Office for further review. Bloom, Charles From: Weldon, Debra Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:29 AM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: RE: 420 E. Ninth Street Charles, This matter was discussed at the City Attorney staff meeting this morning. Before you give notice of particular enforcement action that will be taken by the City, Tom needs to obtain permission from the Board of Directors. He has requested all the information that you can provide concerning this matter, inciuding notices, photos and a brief description of the events leading up to this enforcement request. I will be doing some research on an 81' Circuit case of possible relevance to this matter. Please send your memo and copies of your materials to me and I will attach it to my research memo. With all of this information, Tom will be better able to request the Board's approval of an enforcement action. Debra ----Original Message ---- From: Bloom, Charles Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:46 AM To: Weldon, Debra Cc: Bozynski, Tony Subject: 420 E. Ninth Street Debra, we still have had no contact from Brian Gray of FDIC investments at 420 East 9th Street regarding tine sign that he erected on his property without first applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness. I am about to prepare a letter advising hirn that the sign needs to be taken down by a specific date or he will be subject to fines ranging from $10-500 per day. I have pulled up some documentation regarding the'1000 Rock case and I was wondering how the enforcement If we could find out exactly what enforcement powers and techniques we have that would be great. Please let me know so we can have the sign go through the COA process to see if the Commission feels it is Appropriate. Charles Charles Bloom Planner I City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 371-4483 - Fax: (501) 399-3435 << File: Bloom, Charles.vcf >> CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Planning and Development 723 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4844 ,5IG1�1� Pf AMI T APPLICATION r :)plicants x n e idress 2� E cx :1 No. Permit No. -2 -� O 7 Permit Fee , Prooertv Owner or Agent Name/ :✓rEs �L�f Address / Tel No. .SDI- zsiness Address of Props ;ed Sign-, y� C ape of Signvocx.�r•{/-�.i2�v,•�el o :)rding on Sign i ign Dimensions 4-/ ign Height _. -- :hicular Clearance of Sic.fn _- �destrian Clearance of ,SJ.gn -- Btback of Sign from PropE ty Line, inear Street frontage of Property inear Building frontage—.--''- ming Classification of Property --t/Z'4 -------------------------------------------- zcx;� do hereby certify that all information contained on this Dplication is true '-7)rrect, Kl�d hereby agree that if this permit is issued all requirement E the City of Little Rook: Building, Electrical, Traffic, and Sign Codes will be complied with. further certify that thii.s proposed work is authorized by the owner in fee, and that I am .zthorized to make this .NI-splication. 4 NQun�e or Agent ?, ,xF Address q { - 2:=; TI�elephone Zuni Sign Inspector r a kX s�. I 3-0 ' G�;e7l�.cl�=//l e-joll x �EW�Y�E Who t MA -10 got t �i. ` It v 7 FIE 1 jjF2 Y wfTv►'..z; .•�f' Llr ,74 Of r "•' Fri{ �� ����J.k� - 5•� -r .. :•l •}n�..—_ram-`-f �`u4{}fig"F:5' ;�-, 1� rii•�f � Interoffice Memo Date: 3/16/2005 To: Debra Weldon, City Attorney's Office Cc: Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development From: Charles Bloom RE: 420 East Ninth Street Priority: [Urgent] This is in regards to the sign for the Macarthur heights Apartments at 420 East Ninth Street, The Sign is located within the Macarthur Park Historic District. All signs are suppose to be reviewed by the Historic District Commission in order to protect the integrity of the district. On December 14, 2004 Brian Gray, represent PDIC investments applied for a four foot tall by three foot wide non illuminated sign for his seven unit apartment complex. The sign permit was granted (permit#23899G) and the fee of $50.00 was collected. The applicant did not apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness as required in the Historic District. Since that time Historic District Staff has received several complaints from area property owners about the signage prompting us to look into the matter further. Upon further investigation Historic Commission Staff visited the site and noted that the sign was indeed in place. The sign that is now on the property is one that would have most likely NOT been approved by the Commission because of its lettering and design. The Historic District Staff is wondering what we can do to remedy this situation. Can his permit be revoked or do they get to keep the sign? Please let us know shortly. 3/16/2005 0� UTTLI City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Historic 723 West Markham Street District Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Commission FEvaroriv D�btrLct commi a3fory Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 March 2, 2005 Mr. Brian Gray PDIC Investments, LLC PO Box 1912 Benton, AR 72018 t t Re: 420 East Ninth Street Complex Signage Dear Mr. Gray: r This letter is to inform you that your apartmt complex sign was erected without first obtaining a valid Certificate of Appropriateness. Enclosed is a copy of signage guidelines for the MacArthur Park Historic District. You are urged to contact this office as soon as possible to be informed of what is required. Sincerely, Charles Bloom Historic District Staff City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Historic 723 West Markham Street District - ` = Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 ,.i;. �- _. ; :. -.�.• .o Commission Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 May 16, 2005 Mr. Brian Gray PDIC Investments, LLC PO Box 1912 Benton, AR 72018 Re: 420 East Ninth Street Complex Signage Dear Mr. Gray: The City Attorney's office has advised that the issuance of a sign permit by the Department of Planning and Development does not waive compliance with Little Rock Code provisions regulating signs. Subsections "k" and "1" of Little Rock Code Section 36-545 address this compliance requirement From the Little Rock Municipal Code, Regarding Signs. Sec. 36-545. Permit. (k) The issuance of a sign permit shall in no instance be construed as waiving any provision of this chapter. If any person commences work on a sign before obtaining the necessary permit, or if a permit issued despite the violation of any provision of this chapter, or if the location or specifications of the sign vary from the approved design or location, the person shall be subject to the penalty prescribed in section 1-9 of this Code and the sign shall be removed as an illegal sign as provided in section 36-536 of this chapter. (1) In addition, the administrator shall revoke a sign permit for failure of the holder to conform with any of the provisions of this chapter. All rights and privileges acquired under the provisions of this chapter, or any amendment thereto, are mere licenses revocable at any time. Therefore, even though you have obtained a permit for installation of the sign at your apartment complex, you must still comply with the requirements of the MacArthur Park Historic District ordinance. You will need to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness, which will determine if your current sign is appropriate for the historic district. The filing deadline for the next hearing (July 14, 2005) is June 2, 2005. Our department will work with you if you have questions regarding appropriate sign designs. We encourage you to look at examples within the Historic District, most notably "Answerphone" on the 600 block of Rock Street. Sincerely, Charles Bloom Historic District Staff DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT a LITTLE ROCK r ;gl HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Mr. Brian Gray PDIC Investments, LLC PO Box 1912 Benton, AR 72018 Re: 420 East Ninth Street Complex Signage Dear Mr. Gray: 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 June 30, 2005 Since you have not heard from you regarding our previous mailing we have turned this matter over to the City Attorney's office. You are still in violation of Subsections "k" and "1" of Little Rock Code Section 36-545 regarding the sign on your property. Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to you on July 1, 2005. Sincerely, Charles Bloom Historic District Staff INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: SHEILA REYNOLDS FROM: CHARLES BLOOM SUBJECT: 420 EAST 9TH STREET. DATE: 7/18/2005 CC: ANDRE BERNARD, TONY BOZYNSKI, DEBRA WELDON Enclosed is a copy of the affidavit that Brian Gray signed regarding air conditioner units to be in compliance with the historic district. The air conditioner units are back. He is aware that a COA (Certificate of Appropriateness) must be filed to install them. Earlier in the year he filed, then withdrew his application. My question here is, do we have any enforcement issues that could be done on your end? MACARTHUR PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) SS CITY OF LITTLE ROCK) I, Brian Gray representing PDIC Investments, LLC of Benton, AR being sworn, deposes and states: That I am the owner of the property located at 420 East Ninth Street, more particularly descried as: Lot 7 Block 60 City of Little Rock L 3 That I hereby certify that all window air conditioner units currently in place will be removed from this structure within seven (7) days to be in compliance with the Macarthur Park Historic District Design Review Guidelines. I further certify that I will not install air conditioning units on the property visible from the street or permit any occupant of the structure and/or dwelling to install an air conditioning unit visible from the street without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Little Rock Historic District Commission through the proper procedures. I also agree to allow inspection of this property at all reasonable times. I further understand that I will notify future lessees that the property lies within the Macarthur Park Historic District and any air conditioners visible from the street must be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Little Rock Historic District Commission before installation occurs. N DATE Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of irz� 2004 "*40My commission expires: I NN V r NOTARY PL SUO MASIG 00UN 'Y ATTEST: DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT U n L7 s )/ Et , ]� \ )\ \ & 2 � � § $« 8 / A » a \ } � ) \\ 40, ) § k a $\ o e \ )) ®k \ ] o & ) on d40( ] § � k / � « �S! ( k}j ) k�0 \) )] f ! % K k]# §e no ■ £ )] wa coo CROCK o,AITTMEmo,LANN■�GAND DEVELOPMENT Planning rWest ,atkharn k_ x m_a Uttl.Rock, Arkansas 72ZOM334 Subdivision A1)371-4790 h1r. Brian Gray PDEInvestments, LLc PO s!@Q Benton, AR7018 k DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK yl 723 West Markham Street HISTORIC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 d1 ! '• DISTRICT Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 COMMISSION September 26, 2005 Mr. Brian Gray PDIC Investments, LLC PO Box 1912 �l a Benton, AR 72018 RE: 420 EAST NINTH STREET COA VIOLATION Dear Mr. Gray: This letter is to inform you that an air conditioning unit remains erected in a window of your building without first obtaining a valid Certificate of Appropriateness. You had filed an application for the placement of window air conditioning units in February of 2005. That application was withdrawn at your request at the February hearing. Please remove the remaining air conditioning units, or file a new Certificate of Appropriateness as soon as possible. The next filing deadline is October 3, 2005. Feel free to contact our office with any questions. Sincerely, Charles Bloom Historic District Commission Cc Little Rock City Attorney's Office.