No preview available
 /
     
HDC_08 10 2015Page 1 of 17 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 10, 2015, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Vice Chair BJ Bowen Page Wilson Jennifer Carman Jeremiah Russell Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: Chair Toni Johnson City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Rhea Roberts Keith Canfield Jeff Horton David Anderson Matt Gardner William Wooten Rena Wooten Carrie Wilson Matt Snyder Richard Butler Charles Murratt Vice Chair BJ Bowen read the following statement: Any item that is presented before the Historic District Commission must have affirmative votes from the majority of the entire commission to be approved, that is 4 or more yes votes no matter how many commissioners are in attendance. In the case that there are five or less commissioners present, the commission offers any applicant the opportunity to defer to the next available meeting if they wish. This deferral will be at the commission’s expense. However, if any part of the item is presented or discussed, the deferral will be at the applicant’s expense. No applicants stated they wished to defer. Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 17 II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to approve the minutes of June 8, 2015 as submitted. Commissioner Page Wilson seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent. Brian Minyard, Staff, read into the record the changes to the minutes of July 13, 2015. Page 5 on storm window item, line 3, it should read: “and the Commission is fulfilling its’ duties as a CLG. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission requested an AHPP representative... “Debra Weldon stated that the Commission would not be able to determine whether or not it was a material change if they cannot see the difference between the two options.” Farther down it should read, “Mr. Minyard asked Ms. Weldon if the Commission could look at the materials and hear the item on the same evening. She believes that the motion to reconsider should be made before the item is to be heard.” Changes will be made to reflect new commissioners and the citizens present. A motion was made by Commissioner Page Wilson to approve the minutes of July 13, 2015 as revised. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None IV. Certificates of Appropriateness Page 3 of 17 DATE: August 10, 2015 APPLICANT: William Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1001 McMath COA REQUEST: Change to siding material PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This application is for a change in the siding material to a building that is currently under construction. This is an amendment to a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness. The approved siding is a Hardie cement fiber board lap plank siding and the proposed is a steel siding with a Galvalume finish in a 3” mini-rib siding profile installed horizontally. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 9, 2013, The HDC denied an application on this site for a three story mixed use building with vertical ribbed metal siding. On February 10, 2014, The HDC denied an application on this site for essentially the same three story mixed use building with horizontal ribbed metal siding. On March 10, 2014, The HDC approved an application on this site for essentially the same three story mixed use building with horizontal Hardie plank lap siding. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014 and was approved by the Board of Directors on April 15, 2014. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 4 of 17 Approved construction set of west and north elevations Approved construction set of east and south elevations Page 5 of 17 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is for a change in the siding material to a building that is currently under construction. This application is to amend the current COA to change the siding on the first, second and third floors from the approved Hardie cement fiber board lap plank siding to the proposed steel siding with a Galvalume finish in a 3” mini-rib siding profile installed horizontally. Galvalume is a trade name for steel siding that has a coating of 55% Aluminum-Zinc alloy that is available in various colors and profiles. The siding covers part of the first floor above the brick. The accent panels will not change, nor will the brick on the first floor, nor the windows and doors, nor any other part of the façade except the lap plank siding. Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) 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 an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. 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 Site from northwest Page 6 of 17 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. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be reviewed: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 71 under Section VII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures: C. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES New…construction… shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) Construction of new commercial buildings should follow the basic guidelines established in Section V: Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction. Of particular concern to commercial infill are the building orientation (aligning the storefront with neighboring structures); building mass, scale, and form; placement of entrances and windows, and building materials. All should be compatible with the commercial neighborhood. The commercial guidelines were included as a reference since the building is part commercial and part residential. Page 7 of 17 The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) Page 8 of 17 The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction. The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the following criteria:  Architectural style  General design  General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures  Siting  Height  Proportion  Rhythm  Roof area  Entrance area  Wall areas  Detailing  Facade  Scale  Massing The Architectural Style, General design, Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Scale and Massing of the building was reviewed and approved in March 2014, fifteen months ago. This application is for a change from Hardie board plank lap siding to a metal horizontal ribbed siding. This is reviewed under the following factors. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES The Guidelines state on page 55: 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. The cover letter states that this steel siding will “preserve this mixed-use building more effectively than fiber cement or wood.” Above, as the guidelines clearly state, the building materials specified for this project are not appropriate for the district. Commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in Page 9 of 17 brick. Later one story commercial buildings in the 1950’s and 60’s were made of block (9th and Rock and 614 E 6th). The building at 9th and Rock, which had part of the building removed for the liquor store drive thru, was faced in brick to blend with the existing neighboring buildings even before the district was initiated. The only historic building in the district that has corrugated metal siding, of which Staff is aware, is a detached garage at 10th and Scott at a residential property. It is a one story building that sits off the road at the back corner of the property. The two garage doors face the street, so less of the corrugated metal siding is visible from the 10th Street. Metal corrugated siding, when installed with a horizontal orientation, does give a horizontal shadow line as a result of the corrugations on the metal. This horizontal shadow line is probably a different scale than the lap siding that would have been installed. The size of the lap siding previously approved was not specified, but the drawings measured 10”. The proposed mini-Rib siding will produce a shadow line every six inches. Having more than two out of three stories clad in corrugated metal siding is not appropriate for the district. WALL AREAS / FACADE The west and north side of the building will be always visible from the street. The south and east façades of the building may be obscured by additional buildings when they are built. The west façade is taller than the east wall because of the roof pitch. DETAILING 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) Detail of proposed metal siding Page 10 of 17 The windows and doors will be trimmed out with McElroy 1” J-mold break metal trim. This trim work is small in scale. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: August 10, 2015 Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that Commissioner Wilson is leaving the room due to a conflict of interest since he owns this property. Mr. Minyard made the comment that there will only be five members present to vote on this item and wanted to verify if they wanted to proceed with the item. Mr. Minyard asked if we were going to hear the item and Matt Snyder stated they were. Mr. Snyder will be representing the applicant for this item. Mr. Minyard, Staff, presented the item and noted that the only item for discussion was the change in siding materials, not the brick and not the Hardie panel accent panels. The application is for the McElroy Mini-rib with galvalume finish on it. The project is under construction. In the Guidelines, the Commission will be looking at Building Materials, Wall areas and Detailing. Those are the only three of the eleven factors in the ordinance to be reviewed tonight. Mr. Minyard spoke of building materials of historic commercial buildings and also mentioned the only historic building in the district with corrugated metal siding that staff is aware is an accessory building, a garage structure. Mr. Minyard continued that when the corrugated metal is installed in a horizontal manner, it does give a horizontal shadow line as a result of the corrugations on the metal. This horizontal shadow line is probably a different scale than the shadow line of the lap siding that would have been installed. The size of the lap siding previously approved was not specified. The drawing measured at ten inches and the mini-rib will produce a shadow line every six inches. Having two of three stories clad in metal siding is not appropriate for the district. The west and north sides of the structure will always be visible from t he street. The east and south side of the building may be obscured if additional buildings are built. On detailing, the guidelines state that the detailing is inappropriate with the application of the J- mold trim. The trim work is small in scale. Typically, a larger scale trim is associated with the hardie plank siding, they are asking for the one inch J-mold trim. Mr. Minyard also noted that since the item was distributed last week, Staff did receive a letter from Dale Pekar stating his opposition to the item. Mr. Minyard read part of the letter referencing the materials and maintenance issues. Mr. Minyard also stated he received a letter last week from Clint Bailey, the architect for the project, which stated Mr. Bailey supported the request in the change in materials and that the applicant recently became aware of the discrepancy in the originally proposed siding material and the current building code. Mr. Minyard continued to read part of the letter to the Commission. Mr. Minyard stated that he downloaded the ESR-2290 document and from what Mr. Minyard could gather, it is dependent upon the size of the Hardi-plank to be installed, how it is installed, what size of nails or screws, whether it is attached into a wood stud or a metal stud, or if it is attached to the sheathing that is attached to the studs. There are a lot of variables. The permit Page 11 of 17 set does not specify the size of the Hardi-plank to be installed nor does it specify if it is to be attached to the sheathing or into the studs. There are questions that hopefully the representative will be able to answer. Mr. Minyard then reviewed the previous actions on this site. Staff maintains the recommendation of denial for the change of materials. Matt Snyder, of Rogers, Arkansas, made a presentation. Mr. Snyder stated that they were not going to ask for a galvalume finish on the metal, they had not necessarily designated a color, more likely they would use a Kynar/Floropon finish rather than the clear coat galvalume finish. The J-trim around the windows and doors is same as had been approved earlier. Mr. Snyder described the overall style of the building for the new commissioners utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Snyder referenced the letter from Mr. Bailey stating the Hardi- plank boards to be 8¼” boards nailed into studs 16” on center. The siding material was not able to obtain the 115 wind speed when the specs stated 85. Mr. Snyder continued his presentation on the location of the project in relation to the rest of the district. Mr. Snyder said that no buildings showed up as contributing on the property. Mr. Snyder referenced the guidelines on page 41 which stated that contributing structures should be held to a higher standard. Mr. Snyder commented that it implies that non-contributing structures should be held to a lesser standard. He read part of the Secretary of Interior Standards that is on page 55 of the guidelines. Mr. Snyder noted several references to materials that are similar to historic materials. Mr. Snyder spoke of the eleven properties in the area, three of which are contributing. Mr. Snyder spoke of the buildings in the area. Mr. Snyder spoke of lap siding which is of varying width in the district. They found from two to seven inch size in the district. Mr. Snyder spoke of maintenance issues of wood siding. Mr. Snyder then spoke of Hardie-plank siding being more durable, and if its maintenance and installation issues. Mr. Snyder then showed several photos of projects with metal siding. Vice Chair BJ Bowen asked where the photos were taken. Mr. Snyder pointed out which ones were local and which were not. Mr. Snyder spoke of what was ‘similar’. Mr. Snyder continued that with this contemporary building, they tried to use similar materials. Mr. Snyder spoke of the history of the project with the different roof forms. Mr. Snyder stated that they wanted to have a two to three inch exposure between the ribs of the metal which he feels is closer to the districts historic scale. Mr. Snyder quoted the Secretary of the Interior Standards. There were questions from the commissioners. Vice Chair Bowen asked if they used screws versus nails, would it make a difference. Mr. Snyder stated that it might make a slight difference, but they were looking for the most efficient way which was using nails. The applicant was using prefinished product, and the screws would not be flush when installed which might produce a wave in the siding. The workmen use nails with a thin head and don’t set the nail in too far. Mr. Snyder did not evaluate screws because they were not considered an option in this project. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the first time the application for metal siding was denied when the siding was placed horizontally. What changed between then and now? Why go back to the metal? Mr. Snyder responded that there was a different roof line than before and there Page 12 of 17 were different members on the Commission to which the roof was an issue. Mr. Snyder mentioned the vinyl siding policy which Mr. Snyder felt was brought up out of context. The form of the building is different because of the roof and the roof played a part. Mr. Snyder showed a photo of the previous submittals and what was approved previously. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked what will happen if the siding does not hold up? Mr. Snyder said that according to code, the siding needs to withstand 115 miles per hour (mph) winds for failure. If the product were going to fail, it would be flying through the air causing property damage. Commissioner Pekar asked if the applicant had explored other materials, for example, stucco. Mr. Snyder said that the metal siding was more similar to wood and that stucco was more of a reach than before because of the flat finish of the material. Commissioner Pekar asked about the material being applied to a particular wall or height on the wall. Mr. Snyder described the ESR 2290 report and stated that the ICC does the science behind the report. That gives the architects the data to make an informed decision. Commissioner Pekar asked if Hardie makes the recommendations. Mr. Snyder stated that it is left to the ICC for liability. Commissioner Kelley asked why this was not discovered originally when it was approved. Mr. Snyder said that the expense was not spent on detailed drawings at that time. When going through the building permit process, the detail was found. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that on February 10, 2014 there was a code change and codes become more restrictive. Mr. Snyder stated that the codes changed from 90 to 115 miles per hour for new code. Mr. Snyder said that he was unaware of exactly what that meant, but there was a larger gap to close. Commissioner Russell stated that the metal siding is more durable and will have virtually no maintenance for owner. The metal siding will appear to be painted wood siding from the ground. Commissioner Russell continued to list maintenance issues with the Hardi-plank siding, even if wind speed was not a factor. Vice Chair Bowen asked if there were citizens present to speak for the application. He asked them to state their name for the record and where they lived. Charles Marratt, 1900 Arch Street, started by telling which buildings and the number of buildings that he had restored in the Quapaw area. Mr. Marratt also spoke of how many projects Mr. Marratt had going on at this time. Mr. Marratt noted problems with Hardi-board. Mr. Marratt stated that the Commission should encourage developers like Page Wilson. Mr. Marratt stated that those that know him know he speaks his mind and that “Page can be a pain in the ass.” But, Mr. Wilson continually is coming up with new ideas. Mr. Wilson has taken a real interest and a practical solution to buildings that can be an enhancement to the district. Mr. Marratt spoke of trying to encourage more people to invest in the area. Mr. Marratt said that this building is inappropriate in other areas of the district, but not where it sits. The point is to look for alternative materials and develop new ideas and development. William Wooten, 1300 Arch Street, stated that Mr. Wooten lives in a metal house that Jeff Horton designed and Chares Marratt built. It is five years old. Mr. Wooten noted no problems with the metal or oil canning. Mr. Wooten spoke of houses being restored and a new house that is being built next door. After Mr. Murratt spoke when he was not recognized, Mr. Minyard interrupted and stated that if a citizen wanted to speak they should come to the microphone. Mr. Wooten continued that that his only complaint living in a metal siding was that it makes his phone go crazy. Page 13 of 17 Richard Butler, 417 E 10th Street, stated he has been a resident since 1963 and that he helped draft the original ordinance. At that time, the Commission was not concerned with new construction. Mr. Butler served 4 or 5 terms on the State Review Board and is familiar with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Mr. Butler continued that the ordinance has been amended to deal with new construction. Mr. Butler said that the Commission should encourage new construction and economic future is hanging in the balance. Mr. Butler stated that Page Wilson is innovative, uses durable materials, and he supports the application. Keith Canfield, 1414 Rock Street, offered two perspectives. 1) Mr. Canfield stated that he is a member of the Parks Commission and is the volunteer park ranger at MacArthur Park. There is a Master plan for MacArthur Park and the development of the edges is a part of that plan. The Park should be the focus of this part of town. Mr. Canfield said that little is to be proud of on that side except the Law School. 2) On the choice of materials, Mr. Canfield served with the Clinton Foundation building 130 houses in New Orleans after Katrina. Mr. Canfield saw a lot of wind damage. Historic materials are not always the best choice. From 85 to 115 mph is the difference of being salvageable or destroyed. Mr. Canfield is in support of the application. Vice Chair Bowen asked if there were citizens present to speak in opposition to the application. No citizens chose to speak. Mr. Minyard had a question to ask the representative of the application. Mr. Minyard noted that in the cover letter, the material stated was Multi-core galvalume with a 7/8 inch profile was to be used. Mr. Minyard read part of the cover letter aloud. Mr. Minyard continued that the handouts that were provided with the application have the Mini-Rib circled which is 3/8” thick with a 3” wide corrugation. Which one is the applicant using? Mr. Snyder answered that the confusion is coming from trying to find something that had not been looked at before. Mr. Snyder showed the commission today the Multi-core. The applicant would like to use either one but Mr. Snyder would choose the Multicore. Mr. Minyard stated for clarity that the Multi-core is serpentine in profile and the Mini-rib is angular. Mr. Minyard asked if it was to be painted with the Kynar/Floropon coating from the factory. The answer was yes. Commissioner Kelley asked is that in the staff report? Mr. Minyard stated it is not in the application packet. Mr. Minyard asked if was safe to say that the profile of the Multi-core was similar to what he would call a tin roof. Mr. Minyard clarified, not the material, just the profile. Mr. Snyder said it was a slightly different size but a similar shape. The material requested has a larger profile. Mr. Minyard said he was just trying to relate to the commissioners the profile of the material. Commissioner Russell asked if they could go through the slides again. Mr. Snyder went through the images again. Mr. Snyder described the slide where the Multi-core was juxtaposed with the wood siding. Commissioner Russell stated that the material looks like siding. Mr. Snyder stated that the project, from farther away looks more like lap siding. Vice Chair Bowen asked will the project continue if the siding change is not approved? Mr. Snyder said it will continue, but not with Hardie siding. Commissioner Kelley asked if they had a brochure with specifications on the Multi-core. Mr. Snyder said if the computer has internet access, they could bring on up on the screen. At this time, Mr. Minyard went to the AV station computer and brought up a Google search engine screen. David Anderson googled the McElroy site. Page 14 of 17 Commissioner Russell asked if there were any objections by the applicant to use the Mini-rib. Mr. Snyder said no. Commissioner Pekar asked if the applicant could not meet code putting the Hardi-plank siding on the building. Mr. Snyder said to his knowledge that was the case. She asked him if he knew for sure. He replied “Who knows anything for sure?” Mr. Snyder said that the guy scanning the drawings for life safety building codes says that the siding won’t. Vice Chair Bowen asked what the applicant was going to do if they were denied. Mr. Snyder said he did not know at this time. Commissioner Kelley stated that on the brochure the metal siding was exposed fastener panels. Mr. Snyder said that he did not see any fasteners in the images shown today. Mr. Snyder said that it was a screw that hides in the shadow of the metal and that you would probably never see the screws. Mr. Snyder said that all of the metal was 10-12 feet of the ground with none on the ground level. At this time, Mr. Anderson had found a photo of the Multi-core on the website. Mr. Snyder referred to the item on the screen with the profile of .875 inch by 2 5/8 inch repeat. Commissioner Russell stated he would prefer the Mini-rib. Mr. Snyder stated that without the applicant here, he believes that was his intent based on the correspondence that was sent to Mr. Minyard. Mr. Snyder continued that if you could not do an either or, that would be the one to consider. Jeff Horton, 1219 Spring Street, stated that the mini-rib is on the Children’s Center on Roosevelt Road (part of the Our House complex). It is run on a vertical pattern instead of horizontal. Vice Chair Bowen asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Vice Chair Bowen asked for a motion to be made. There was a motion made by Commissioner Russell to approve the application with the Mini-rib siding which closely mimics the two inch siding found throughout MacArthur Park. Staff asked him if he meant Multi-core. Commissioner Russell stated no, he meant Mini-rib. There was no second for the motion. Vice Chair Bowen asked for some guidance from Staff. Mr. Minyard stated that the application was for Multi-core not Mini-rib. The Applicant has not amended the application to the Mini-rib. The other question is that if a motion does not get a second. Debra Weldon stated that a motion fails with a lack of a second, but that does not mean that another motion could not be made. Vice Chair asked Mr. Snyder if he wanted to change his application to have Mini-rib siding. He said he wanted to change the application. Commissioner Jennifer Carman asked which siding they were voting on. Commissioner Carman said that the photos they were shown were of the Multi-core, not the mini-rib. Mr. Snyder said he was not aware of the discrepancy in the product submitted, because the original application was for Multi-core. The applicant would be happy with either product. Mr. Minyard was asked exactly what the application was. Mr. Minyard said that the cover letter stated Multi- core, the application says Multi-core, but the submittals say Mini-rib. Mr. Minyard continued that Mr. Minyard wanted to ask the applicant in the public hearing exactly what they wanted and a few minutes ago Mr. Snyder said Multi-core. Ms. Weldon said that since the application stated Multi-core, Mr. Snyder would have to amend his application to use the Mini-rib. Mr. Snyder amended the application to Mini-rib. Vice Chair Bowen asked for a motion. Commissioner Russell made a motion to approve the application with Mini-rib siding with factory provided Page 15 of 17 Kynar finish to mimic horizontal wood siding. Commissioner Carman seconded. Vice Chair Bowen started to ask about a different type of vote, but Mr. Minyard stated the raising their hands would be sufficient. With a raised hand vote, there were 2 ayes (Russell and Carman), three noes (Kelley, Bowen, and Pekar), one absent (Johnson) and one recusal (Wilson). Ms. Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that the Commissioners needed to state for the record why they voted no. Vice Chair Bowen stated the material was not appropriate for the district, Commissioner Kelley stated the material was not appropriate, and Commissioner Pekar stated the material was incongruous, not appropriate and not a historic material. Commissioner Russell stated that he would like to ask the Commission why metal siding was not appropriate and Hardie siding which is hazardous to environment was. Ms. Weldon stated that this was discussion after the vote. Ms. Weldon instructed Vice Chair Bowen that he could open the discussion up again, but the public hearing portion was closed. It has been voted on. Vice Chair Bowen said that as far as he was concerned, the item was closed. He asked if Staff would be sending the applicant a letter to inform them of the outcome, and Staff replied yes. Page 16 of 17 V. Other Matters Preservation Plan Implementation update That update was emailed to the commissioners last week. The next meeting is Friday after next. Enforcement issues There were none to bring to the Commission at this time. Certificates of Compliance Staff did not write any this month. Reconsideration of the Storm Windows at 1201 Commerce Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission about the change between the last hearing and this one concerning the storm windows. Note: Commissioner Wilson returned to the room at this time. He covered the letter from the AHPP and the staff report from before. He also detailed the differences between the two different types of storm windows. Staff believes with the approval letter from Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP), the holder of the façade easement, and with the change in design of the storm windows to a low profile design, that this item should be reheard at the next monthly meeting. Vice Chair BJ Bowen asked Matt Gardner why he did not have AHPP sign off on it before coming to the Commission the first time. Mr. Gardner said that he knew he would have to have the AHPP approval and probably should have. He apologized for not doing so. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar made a motion to reconsider the application and Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. The vote was 5 ayes and one no (Russell). The item failed because the bylaws state that the reconsideration must be unanimous. Commissioner Wilson asked for clarification of the vote. Mr. Minyard stated that the bylaws state the vote to reconsider must be unanimous. It was not, therefore it failed. Matt Gardner, Parks and Recreation, stated that he would not wait until next year to file again on this item. Keith Canfield, spoke of the history of the hostel. He spoke of volunteering and volunteer funding and the public private partnership of the effort. He said that the order in which things were done was not optimal, but to please reconsider the reconsideration of the item. Vice Chair Bowen made the comment that if interior storm windows were installed, they would not come to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Russell stated for the record that to reconsider there must be a significant change and there is not a significant change. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Vice Chair Bowen said that he would entertain a motion to adjourn and after a short break they would convene for a work session on the guidelines revision in the Sister Cities Conference Room. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:30 p.m. Attest: O�Iuku)/� Chair 7 Secretary/Staff Dam, q , (L� - 7c (, Date Page 17 of 17