HDC_07 14 2014Page 1 of 17
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, July 14, 2014, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Randy Ripley
BJ Bowen
Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Page Wilson
Members Absent: Open Position
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Jill Judy
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of June 9, 2014 as
submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote
of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
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
DATE: July 14, 2014
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: Generally, 9th Street to 15th Street and I-30 to Main Street
REQUEST: Update Nomination of National Register Historic District
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located generally, 9th Street to 15th Street and I-30 to Main Street. This
comprises the entirety of the MacArthur Park National Register Historic District.
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs
has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures.” In it, sections are
titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for
participation in the Certified Local
Government Program”, “Process for
Certification of Local Governments”, “Process
for monitoring Certified local Governments,”
“Certified Local Governments Participation in
the National Register Nomination Process”,
and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local
Governments.”
In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the
Certified Local Government Program
subsection C Local Historic Preservation
Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the
Duties of local preservation commissions shall
include:
“Reviewing all proposed National
Registration nominations for properties
within the boundaries of the CLG’s
jurisdiction. When a commission reviews
a nomination or other action that will
impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific
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. III.
Location of MacArthur Park Neighborhood
Historic District
Page 3 of 17
discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission
must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.”
In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination
process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state:
A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding
the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination
to the National Register.
I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission
and the chief elected official.
2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National
Register criteria.
3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the
jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending
nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation.
B. CLG involvement in the National Register process
I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the
AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the
eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using
National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of
the property.
2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG,
the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30
calendar days of receipt.
3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be
nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the
CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation
Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the
SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must
be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner
receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible
for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance
with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA.
4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a
property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to
the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification
time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those
of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its
recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local
Page 4 of 17
preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final
decision.
6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is
submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments
from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination.
7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public
participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports
submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include
assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted
during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public
meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report.
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Update Nomination of National Register Historic
District. The funding for this nomination is provided through a CLG grant from AHPP.
The City of Little Rock received a CLG grant to update the survey of architectural resources in
the MacArthur Park National Register Historic District in the 2004-2005 grant cycle but the
survey was not completed until 2008 with the final payment being made in September 2008.
There were structures that were shown on the 2008 survey as contributing because of the
different ruling on artificial siding that were shown as non-contributing on the original
documentation. New buildings that had been built since the original nomination were added.
But, the nomination was never updated, so that those buildings were never officially designated
as such in the records at the National Park Service.
This nomination does that and more. The nomination, as attached, updates the survey with the
changes in contributing and non-contributing in addition to surveying all of the buildings that
have been built and never surveyed. The original nomination was written different than the
nominations that are done today. The new nomination is much more descriptive of the
architectural styles of the neighborhood and highlights various structures from the periods.
This historic district has 179 contributing resources, 1 National landmark structure (Arsenal
building), and 19 individually listed buildings. It also has 56 non-contributing structures and 31
non-contributing sites. This calculates at a 70% contributing status.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C
is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 14, 2014
Sandra Taylor Smith made a presentation to the Commission on the Additional
Documentation to the nomination of the MacArthur Park National Register Historic
District. The original nomination was made in 1976 and was followed by federal
Page 5 of 17
litigation on the impacts of I-630. The existence of the district was instrumental in the
design mitigation efforts of the sunken part of I-630 and the textured concrete retaining
walls. She spoke of 239 buildings, 1 National Historic Landmark and 16 individual
listings. 170 buildings are contributing and 52 are non-contributing which calculates to
78% contributing. She spoke of individual buildings and architectural styles of buildings
in the district. There were questions on some individual buildings by the
Commissioners.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked how many contributing structures we have now
compared to how many contributing there were in the original nomination. Ms. Smith
stated that she did not know since there was not a breakdown of those in the original
nomination. There was a discussion on how vacant lots are counted toward the
contributing or non-contributing. If a lot has always been vacant, it is not counted
against as non-contributing. If there was a building there at one time, it is considered
non-contributing. They are called sites in the nomination, and are not reflected in the
numbers of structures. Ms. Smith stated that there are 34 vacant lots in the district now.
That property is non-contributing whether a new house is built on it or if the lot or it
remains vacant.
There was a motion to support the nomination. That motion was made by
Commissioner Page Wilson and was seconded by BJ Bowen. The motion passed with
a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Mr. Minyard stated that the Commissioners received the list of contributing and non-
contributing that will need to be updated. The full write-up was included in the
commissioner’s packets. Vice-Chair Johnson asked that they be given the list of
contributing and non-contributing and she felt it would be important when forming a
decision on individual properties in the future. Mr. Minyard said he would get a copy
from AHPP when it is finished. He continued that the second paragraph of the staff
report always states whether a property is contributing or not.
Commissioner Mark Brown left the meeting to recuse for the next two items.
Page 6 of 17
DATE: July 14, 2014
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy
ADDRESS: 909 Cumberland
COA REQUEST: Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 909 Cumberland. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 3, Block 44, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The Fletcher House, a single family structure was built
around 1900 and designed by Charles Thompson. The
2006 survey form states: “This two story hipped roof
Colonial Revival has the typical full front porch. A bay
window is set off-center on the front facade. The central
dormer, the classical columns and balustrade are typical
of this style.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for the installation of two types of
Fence around the property.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Page 66 of the Guidelines state:
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
Rear yard fencing—72”
Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50
years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on
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 7 of 17
physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron
or wooden fence.
Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast
iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and
maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines.
Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood
fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than
three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the
building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the
scale of the building and grounds.
Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may
be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the
structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure.
Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not
stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link
fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street,
and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is
recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on
pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are
not appropriate.
New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards
that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the
materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood.
Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with
historic walls in the neighborhood.
The proposal is to install two types of fencing on the property. The first would be a 36” wood
picket fence surrounding three sides of the front yard from the street to three feet behind the
main body of the house. This would also be installed on both the north and south property lines.
West (front) elevation from 2007 survey Existing north elevation
Page 8 of 17
This is shown in red on the sketch below. There will be a three and one half foot wide gate in
the front picket fence at the sidewalk leading to the front porch steps. The pickets on the gate
will be in the same line as the fence.
The second type of fencing would be a 72” stockade wood fence around the back yard
extending on all three sides the back and side yards starting at three feet from the front of the
main body of the house. The guidelines state that the six foot tall fence should start at the
midpoint of the house where as this one is requested to start at three feet from the front corner.
On the north side, if the fence were installed at
the location requested, three quarters of the front
corner window would show because if the height
of the window itself and the height of the widow
off the ground. If the fence were placed midway
on the house, it would be located past the
stairway window to the back of the house. The
stairway window is recognizable as the window
that is between floors. Therefore, if the fence
was placed where the guidelines state, only the
front corner window would be outside of the six
foot fence on the north side.
On the south side, the neighboring house has a
six foot fence near the rear of the house. The
fence could be placed at the same point as the
neighbor’s fence, or could be placed at the inset
of the structure about fifteen feet behind the
porch.
On each side of the house in the stockade
portion of the fence, there will be a 3 1/2’ gate.
The gate will be designed such that the gate will
not be easily perceived by non-residents.
There will be a roller (sliding) gate in the rear yard along the alley. The gate will be 20’ wide
with the opening on the south side of the property. The pickets in that gate will be in the same
line as the fence.
South side of house
Page 9 of 17
Sketch of Fence placement.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 14, 2014
Mr. Minyard made a presentation for the fencing item. He described the fence in detail
and referenced the Guidelines and the difference between the proposal and the
Guidelines.
There was a discussion between Commissioner Randy Ripley and Staff on the location
of the fence and which windows would be included within the six foot fence area per
their application and what the Guidelines would recommend. On the north elevation,
the entirety of the six foot fence would be visible. On the south side, it will be somewhat
visible, but mainly where the fence starts, not the entirety of the fence.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked a question about the brackets. Mr. Minyard
confirmed that he was talking about the gate hardware on the Cumberland facing
fencing and stated that the hardware would be minimal.
All of the Guidelines have been met, height, materials, etc., except that the 6’ height
fence would start at the front of the structure instead of half way back. Mr. Minyard
Page 10 of 17
referred the commissioners to the Staff report that quotes the Guidelines on fencing.
There was a discussion on the perceived intentions of the Guidelines. Commissioner
Ripley asked if they were going to paint the fence. Mr. Minyard said that the applicant
would need to answer that question.
Jill Judy, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. The reason why the fence is brought
to the front is because the location of the hvac system being located there by the
stairwell will make the bedroom (which is located directly behind that stairwell) quieter.
The hvac system will be hidden from the street for security and visually pleasing. This
is to be a single family house. They do own the vacant lot next door and do plan to
build something there eventually. They plan to paint the picket fence cream to match
the trim of the house. They do not plan to paint the privacy fence. The roller gate in the
rear will be electronic for off street parking.
Vice Chair Johnson asked if she had any photos of the proposed fence. She said that
she did not have any photos with her, but it would be the typical six foot privacy fence
that could be bought at Lowes or Home Depot. The gates on the front of the house are
for accessing the hvac system and taking out the trash, etc.
Vice Chair Johnson summarized the application by saying that the fence meet the
guidelines with the exception of starting the six foot section at the front of the house
instead of halfway back. Mr. Minyard added that the Guidelines are indeed guidelines.
Is the placement of the hvac system and wanting to enclose them in the taller fence
appropriate for this location?
Debra Weldon made a point to the Chair for comments from citizens. There were no
citizens in the audience at this time. Ms. Judy stated that Poe Travel (the neighbor to
the south) had volunteered to write a letter in support of the application. Mr. Minyard
said that he had not received that letter. He noted that all notices had been met on this
item and the next one.
Commissioner Page Wilson stated that he had no problem with the fence application.
He may have differing opinion on fencing but supports this one.
Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1
recusal (Brown) and 1 open position.
Page 11 of 17
DATE: July 14, 2014
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy
ADDRESS: 909 Cumberland
COA REQUEST: Facade changes with window and siding modifications and roof pitch
change
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 909 Cumberland. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 3, Block 44, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The Fletcher House, a single family structure was built
around 1900 and designed by Charles Thompson. The
2006 survey form states: “This two story hipped roof
Colonial Revival has the typical full front porch. A bay
window is set off-center on the front facade. The central
dormer, the classical columns and balustrade are typical
of this style.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for facade changes with window and
siding modifications and roof pitch change. The roof
change will add a 12/4 gable on the rear addition and the
window changes will remove aluminum windows and
replace with wood windows to match the historical
windows.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
REVISED STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
Location of Project
Page 12 of 17
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This house has an addition to the east (far left in photos below). The original porch has been
filled in which is located between the addition and the main body of the house signified by the
hip roof. The original porch had a flat roof and is where the aluminum storm door is located. A
vertical piece of trim that is painted a lighter color separates the two.
The proposed changes to the windows and siding are as follows: On lower level, remove
aluminum windows and door. Add four new one over one wood framed 32”x72” windows with
trim to match original house. These windows are not clad. On upper level, remove aluminum
window and replace with original one over one 32”x72” window taken from interior of house
which matches other windows. See sketches on next page.
The proposed changes to the siding are to remove the vertical trim board between the original
porch and the addition. Repair and or replace siding as needed with 1”x4” beveled siding.
Remove vertical siding on addition below windows on the upper level. See sketches on next
page.
The proposed changes to the windows and siding will alter the existing siding and remove the
vertical trim that distinguishes the original porch from the addition. It will also remove the vertical
siding below the addition windows. But with the proposed roof changes with the lower pitch
than the original hip roof pitch, it will still appear to be an addition to the house.
The roof modifications is to add a 4/12 pitch gabled roof over the original back porch and the
addition. Currently a portion of the water from the main body of the house and the addition flow
to the flat original porch area before exiting the roof. This would remove any potential pooling
on the flat portion of the roof.
With the height of the building, it is difficult to see the current roof on the addition. The photos
above “Existing north Elevation” was taken from the 9th street sidewalk. With a 4/12 roof, it may
be possible to see the new roof, but the profile would be minimal. AHPP has stated that they
-
Existing north elevation Close-up of addition and porch
Page 13 of 17
would prefer to have a hipped roof on the addition instead of a gable ended roof to be more
sympathetic with the original design of the original hipped roof.
This property is currently being rehabilitated using the State Income Tax Credit. Changes that
are approved by the Historic District Commission may not be approved by the National Parks
Service and therefore may or may not be implemented.
Existing sketch of north façade.(not to scale) Proposed sketch of north façade.(not to scale)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
REVISION:
The applicant has revised their application to include a hipped roof on the addition instead of a
gabled roof. The sketch above has the revised roof shown.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 14, 2014
Mr. Minyard made a presentation on this item and made mention that the application is going for
state and federal income tax credits. He did talk with AHPP about the changes proposed. The
applicant originally came in with a gabled roof but AHPP suggested changing it to a hip roof to
match the rest of the roof. The applicant changed the application to match AHPP’s
recommendation.
He continued that if this Commission approves a change and it is not approved by the feds for
the tax credit, he has been told that the applicant may not do the improvements. But, that is not
Page 14 of 17
that different than someone not choosing to implement a COA. They are currently remodeling
the interior of the house.
Vice Chair Toni Johnson asked if they have been working with AHPP on these plans. Mr.
Minyard said Ms. Judy will need to confirmed that. Vice Chair Johnson sked if they had to come
back if they did not do what was approved. Mr. Minyard said that it would come back if there
was a need to, otherwise it could be a maintenance issue that Staff would sign off on.
Jill Judy clarified that they were working in tandem on the credits and the commission. The
pitch of the roof, she suspects, will be approved because of the long term viability of the roof.
The windows are important to the district and they have an amendment prepared to the take to
the feds. They may come back with some modification and they plan on working with the feds.
Commissioner Ripley asked why they choose 4/12 pitch instead of a taller pitch to match the
existing roof. She stated it was more in relation to the size of the addition.
Vice Chair Johnson asked about the exposed brackets on the roof. Ms. Judy explained that
they are not exposed brackets. The rafter tails are exposed now because they had to take off
parts of the soffits to get rid of bat guano and rid the house of bat smell. They will be covered
back up when that process is done.
Commissioner Ripley asked if the old windows that will be repositioned are operable. Ms. Judy
stated that they make all of their windows operable. He asked if they were true divided light
windows. After discussion, she said that they were original to the house or original to the
addition.
There were no citizens present at this time.
Commissioner Wilson stated that he was a big believer in differentiation of new and old on
buildings. He believes that this is an alteration on top of an alteration and more of a
rehabilitation rather than restoration and that he definitely supports the application.
Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Commissioner
Bowen seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 recusal (Brown) and 1 open
position.
Mr. Minyard asked if Ms. Judy could send Commissioner Brown back into the room. She
motioned that he had left the building.
Page 15 of 17
V. Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Enforcement continues on the convenience store on 6th Street. Mr. Wilson asked to be updated
on the issue. Mr. Minyard stated that they are violating their COA and the base zoning signage
code by having too much of the windows covered with signs. Commissioner Ripley commented
that there was a lengthy discussion on that during their COA hearing. Commissioner Wilson
responded that when he thinks of historic neighborhoods, he thinks of a lot of signs everywhere.
The signs do not bother him. He asked if there was anything punitive on this. Mr. Minyard
stated that for the base zoning, he would go to Environmental Court. Commissioner Boaitey
asked if they could be required to finish the painting of the building. Mr. Minyard reminded the
Commission that the original application was an enforcement issue.
Certificates of Compliance
Mr. Minyard has issued three this week. After a question by Vice Chair Johnson, Mr. Minyard
stated that he requests all property owners to call in or contact him about any painting to clarify
with them the rules of what can and cannot be painted. That way when any other citizen calls
in. we can verify exactly what they are doing. He also mentioned the recreation of the porch
that was damaged with the car accident. That house is as 1417 Cumberland.
Election of officers.
There was a discussion of the process of filing the QQA postion.
Commissioner Wilson asked about how may positions have to be filled. It was noted that the
only two positions are Chair and Vice Chair. Toni Johnson is currently serving as Vice Chair.
He commented that other commissions he had been on, people have moved up to be the chair
so that everybody had a chance to have the experience to be the Chair. He nominated Vice
Chair Johnson to be Chair. Commissioner Boaitey seconded the nomination. She accepted the
nomination. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Boaitey nominated BJ Bowen as Vice Chair and it was seconded by
commissioner Ripley. Commissioner Bowen accepted the nomination and the motion passed
unanimously.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present at this time.
Next Meeting
Mr. Minyard announced that there are no applications for the August 11 meeting and therefore
no meeting.
Guidelines Revision
Mr. Minyard noted that the RFQ will be posted soon for the Infill Guidelines revision and that it
will be a topic on your upcoming meetings. Mr. Minyard explained the process for RFQs. After
the consultant is selected, then the public meetings will be held at the regular commission
meeting where the consultant will take comments from the citizens and commission alike. Mr.
Minyard stated that he would be mailing all of the property owners of the meetings. Chair
Johnson asked if contractors that worked in the area would get notice. Mr. Minyard stated that
they could. Commissioner Wilson said that he hoped that the consultant was not from
Nashville, that was not beholden to the historic community and that would stand up here and tell
the truth. He wanted an independent person to be the consultant. Mr. Minyard responded that
Page 16 of 17
the RFQ is put on our website and that could also mail to a list of firms that have responded or
expressed interest before. Mr. Wilson commented that he wanted Ethel Goodstein Murphy on
the list to receive notice to reply to the RFQ. Mr. Minyard asked the Commission to email him
names of firms that they would like to be sent the RFQ. Chair Johnson suggested that they look
at national trends of what infill has been done successfully.
I-30 Expansion
Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Weldon if the Commission or individuals could take a position on the
widening of I-30. He briefly described the project and listed groups and individuals that are
against the project or have questions. Ms. Weldon asked if it would affect the MacArthur Park
district. He replied that it may not, but it the commission is to promote a prosperous, safe
neighborhood, that is an issue. Without a direct impact on the district itself, she believes that
the Commission could not take a position. As an individual, one person could. They could
mention that they are on the commission, but not that they represent the Commission.
Mr. Minyard commented that the highway department was aware of all of the historic districts in
their buffer zone. There will be Section 106 reviews because of this action. He reiterated that at
individuals, they certainly could comment on the action. He continued that MacArthur Park
could lose some buildings in the process.
Zoning
Mr. Wilson commented that the MacArthur park had only two zonings. Mr. Minyard clarified that
there are two basic zonings with a few PZDs scattered about. Mr. Wilson asked in order to
create a more vital community, if any of the commissioners were interested in looking at land
use. When he looks at the three buildings at Stones Throw brewery, he wonders if there was a
zoning such s neighborhood commercial. Mr. Minyard commented that there is a land use
category of Neighborhood commercial and the C-1 zoning is also called Neighborhood
Commercial. Mr. Wilson asked if there was anything the commission could do to on the thirty
one vacant lots to encourage development through zoning. He asked when staff last looked at
the land use in this area. Mr. Minyard stated 2000. Mr. Wilson replied that it probably needed
to be looked at. Mr. Minyard stated that the Future Land Use has been updated since that.
Mr. Wilson stated that we were still stuck with residential zoning. Mr. Minyard clarified that R-4A
and UU were zoning classification and that Residential Low Density and Residential Medium
Density were Land Use Plan categories. Mr. Wilson suggested that other areas should be
zoned UU. He asked how we could encourage people to develop in the area. Mr. Minyard
stated that he R-4A already allows C-1 uses as a conditional use. C-1 uses have office and
commercial uses listed. Mr. Wilson stated that people coming into the neighborhood would not
or may not understand that.
Chair Johnson asked if this was a post adjournment conversation. Ms. Weldon stated that this
topic was one outside the parameters of the HDC and it could be a post discussion. A motion
was made to adjourn and the meeting was adjourned at 6:37. Mr. Wilson stated that there
needed to be a second for adjournment because of parliamentary procedure. Ms. Weldon
stated that this commission uses the small meeting procedures.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:37 p.m.
Attest:
air
Secretary /Staff
`-q t 9
Date
O1,, c6 -
Date
Page 17 of 17