HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1984-006 Message Application Approved 11/02/1984CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AS HAVING BEEN APPROVED AND SHALL
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS•
C• IF THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS INVOLVES THE DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING WHICH
THE COMMISSION INITIALLY DETERMINES TO BE AN INAPPROPRIATE
DEMOLITION, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING SAID DETERMINATION THE
COMMISSION MAY DEFER THE MATTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
COMMISSION HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEMOLITION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1• SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR PERSERVATION AND
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES, IF LACK OF SUCH FUNDS IS THE REASON
FOR THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH•
2• ADAPTIVE USE CHANGES, IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH THE REQUIRED PERSERVATION 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 ORDINANCE-
S. AN ATTEMPT TO FIND A PURCHASER FOR THE
PROPERTY WHO WOULD MAINTAIN THE LANDMARK IN A SUITABLE AND
ACCEPTABLE MANNER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
COMMISSION ORDINANCE•
4• THE FEASIBILITY OF MOVING THE STRUCTURE TO
ANOTHER APPROPRIATE LOCATION•
5• ANY SUCH OTHER SOLUTION AS MAY BE DEEMED
ADVISABLE AND IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS
ORDINANCE -
DURING THE TIME THE COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING ANY ONE
OF THE ALTERNATIVES HEREINABOVE SET OUT, PROGRESS REPORTS
SHALL BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND/OR ITS STAFF AT EACH
REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING• IF AT THE
EXPIRATION OF SIX CALENDAR MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST
PUBLIC HEARING OF AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, THE
COMMISSION HAS NOT FOUND A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE
DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY, THE COMMISSION SHALL RESCHEDULE
THE MATTER FOR PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRING NOTICES AS
AFORESAID, AND UPON SAID PUBLIC HEARING, MAKE ITS FINAL
DETERMINATION AS TO THE APPLICATION• IN SUCH CASES, THE
PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL DETERMINATION SHALL BE HELD WITHIN
ONE CALENDER MONTH AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, AND AT THE SECOND
PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSION MAY HEAR SUCH MATTERS AS ARE
CONSIDERED NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO FULLY ADVISE THE
COMMISSION OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEN EXIST AS
THEY PERTAIN TO THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION• AT THE SECOND
PUBLIC HEARING THE COMMISSION MAY IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCE ITS
DECISION OR TAKE THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO ITS NEXT
REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ANNOUNCING ITS DECISION, BUT IN NO EVENT LONGER THAN TWO
CALENDER MONTHS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD
AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING• IF THE COMMISSION HAS
RENDERED NO DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION
WITHIN TWO CALENDER MONTHS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX
MONTHS FOLLOWING THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSION
SHALL CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AS HAVING BEEN APPROVED AND
SHALL ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS•
D. IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING THE MATTERS BROUGHT TO
THE COMMISSIONS ATTENTI_fAW AND THE CRITERIA HEREINABOVE SET
OUT IN SECTION 4, COMMISSION MAY DETERMINE THAT FAILURE
TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WILL INVOLVE A
SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT, AND NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT IT MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE, OWING TO CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY
AFFECTING THE STRUCTURE BUT NOT AFFECTING THE HISTORIC.
DISTRICT GENERALLY• SUCH CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL DEROGATION FROM THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS
ORDINANCE, AND THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE SUCH APPLICATION
AND GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE ACTIVITY
PROPOSED-
E. IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED, IT SHALL PLACE UPON
ITS RECORD THE REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION AND MAY
INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, RESTORATION,
MOVING, OR DEMOLITION•
F• NO PERSON SHALL BE GRANTED A BUILDING PERMIT OR
OTHER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT BY THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK WITH
REFERENCE TO ANY STRUCTURE LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT UNTIL ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH -
SECTION 6• NOTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO PREVENT THE ORDINARY MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF
ANY EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
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; NOR TO PREVENT
THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, RESTORATION OR
2-9
November 2, 1984
Page Two
Third, there are policy considerations in this request.
The Commission should not adopt a posture of not allowing any
structure to be torn down, but should allow such action only if
structures are clearly out -of -sync with the surrounding
neighborhood, are of no historical significance, and constitute
an eyesore, or, in the alternative, only in the case of
significant danger to the public welfare.
Fourth, Mike states in his letter that this structure has
an architectural significance of II and no historical
significance known. The architectural survey on which this
information is based does not, however, reflect results that
might be obtained by a determined and comprehensive search of
the history of this structure. It is entirely possible that
this structure has a material historical significance, waiting
to be uncovered.
Please excuse the length of this letter. I did wish,
however, that my thoughts be known by you as my fellow
Commissioners and hence this letter.
I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the meeting on
Thursday. Please excuse my absence.
Sincerely
4.
William H.
WHK/law
cc: Mr. Mike Dooley
yours,
Kennedy III