Loading...
HDC_09 12 20111 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 12, 2011 5:00 p.m. Curran Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Chris Vanlandingham Members Absent: Loretta Hendrix City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Stefan Vickery Dr. George DeRoeck Byl Harrell Dennis McKelvey Rhea Roberts Carolyn Newbern Page Wilson Stephan McAteer George Campbell Ron Ross Keith Canfield II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of August 8, 2011 as submitted. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. Notice requirements were meet 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 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: September 12, 2011 APPLICANT: Stefan Vickery, Vickery Construction LLC ADDRESS: 904-906 Commerce Street COA REQUEST: Siding and Trim; Porch Rebuild; and Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904-906 Commerce Street. The property’s legal description is “The West 66 feet of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 59 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built in the 1890’s. The 2007 survey form states: “This one-story Queen Anne has a front facing wing with bay windows and segmented roof with the same side facing wing termination. A porch with minimal decoration fills between the front and side wings.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. The removal of the original weatherboard, replacing the porch decking, and adding railings and columns were started without a COA by the HDC. The proposal is to replace siding that is different than that removed, replace columns on porc h that are different to the original, add spindled frieze detail between columns, replace deck boards on porch, add built in bench on porch and replace all window with vinyl windows. A letter was sent on June 6, 2011 certified return receipt requested to the owners. It was returned undeliverable. A letter informing the owner that they were in the district was mailed along with others in May 2006 and in January 2011. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 3 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On January 13, 1988, an action was noted to replace partially burned roof, remove chimney, replace windows and replace front door by the Applicant Lanelle McCollum. No notation was found in the file to say if the COA was approved or not. PROPOSAL: The proposal is divided into three parts. The first part is “Siding and Trim.” Most of this normally could have been handled with a COC, but the applicant has desired to replace the vertical shiplap siding that is evident on the front bay with horizontal 6” weatherboard to match the rest of the house. This is shown in the photos above and particularly in the photo labeled “2007 Survey photo south side” and “Current Photo front with tower.” In the 1988 photo, the vertical siding was evident. This vertical siding was approximately 9-12” wide and had a shiplap 2007 Survey photo front Current Photo front 2007 Survey photo south side Current Photo front with tower 2007 Survey photo north side Front view after siding removal 4 edge. To replace with horizontal 6” weatherboard would be a change in materials and design and would require a COA. Replacing rotten soffit, fascia, frieze detailing, corner boards, and “mud boards” with the same profile wood is not normally subject to a COA. The second part is “Front Porch Rebuild.” This was the original violation observed by Staff. The front porch decking was removed and replaced without a COA or COC. It was replaced with 5/4” pressure treated wood. New stairs were added along with new handrails along stairs. The new handrails are made of 4x4 posts with 2x4 rails and 2x2 poplar spindles. The double columns, as shown in the photos above, were replaced with square 8x8 fiberglass columns. The detailing of the posts caps and bases were eliminated. A built-in bench forms the railing along the front of the porch. The 1988 photo shows a very utilitarian railing on the porch, one that was probably not original to the house. See photo above labeled 1988 Survey Photo. A handrail was installed on the south half of the porch as described. A spindle frieze detail is proposed along the top of the porch to be constructed out of 5/4 poplar, 2x2 poplar spindles and 3/4 cove molding. The third portion of the application is the replacement of the all sashes with “Atrium vinyl white double hung windows with 6 lite upper sash. Low E/Argon (U factor 0.31, SHGC 0.29). These windows would replace the original wood windows in the structure. Spindle Frieze detail 1988 survey photo Sketch of proposal. 5 ANALYSIS: The Secretary of Interior stands that apply to the application are a follows: 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with t he historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. The first part of the application is the Siding and Trim. Again, the replacement of broken cracked and warped pieces of siding and trim with pieces of same profile and size is usually a matter of COC’s. However, the removal of a large characteristic accent siding as the vertical shiplap siding is not appropriate for a contributing house. The vertical siding is a defining element on the façade of this house. Replacing it with horizontal weatherboard is not appropriate. The second portion of the application is the Front Porch Rebuild. The replacing of the porch decking and handrails is simple enough to blend with the structure. The replacing of the posts on the porch with ones that are twice the size of the original also removed character-defining elements of the house. The built-in in bench in not in keeping whatsoever with the period of the house. The bench should be removed and replaced with more handrails to match the new handrails. The new columns should also be removed and the older posts replicated. This house was, as far as our records show, a rather plain utilitarian house without all of the fretwork as typical of the more extravagant Victorian houses. To add a spindle frieze to a house that did not have on originally is to add a false sense of history to the structure. The third portion of the application is the replacement of the original windows. The 2007 survey states that there is a combination of 6/1, 6/6 and 1/1 windows on the house. The Proposal is to replace all the windows with 6/1 windows regardless of the original lite arrangement. As stated in the research done for the Commission on replacement windows, a storm windows in addition to a repaired original wood window will have a combined U-value of .50 with a 4.5 year payback in energy savings. Vinyl windows, as proposed, would have a 0.31 U value, but a 240 year Proposed Column Profile 6 payback in energy savings, and the original historic fabric is lost. Replacement of these windows with vinyl windows is not appropriate when a similar energy saving can be had with the addition of storm windows. 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. 2. Approval of the following items: 1. Replacement of broken cracked and warped pieces of siding and trim with pieces of same profile and size. 2. Decking on front porch. 3. Railings on front porch with extension to location of removed bench. 3. Denial of the following items: 1. Replacing vertical siding with horizontal weatherboard. 2. Built-in bench on front porch. 3. 8x8 fiberglass columns on front porch. 4. Spindle frieze detail. 5. Replacement vinyl windows. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this item be deferred to the August 8, 2011 hearing because the applicant did not receive his list form the abstract company in time, therefore, letters were not mailed to property owners in a timely manner. COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2011 A motion was made to defer the item to the August 8, 2011 agenda and was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. COMMISSION ACTION: August 8, 2011 A discussion was held on the applicant being required to get four votes out of the entire commission to get his item passed. The applicant conferred with the owners and decided to take the deferral that the commission offered. A motion was made to defer the item to the September 12, 2011 agenda and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: September 12, 2011 Staff has researched the address from the QQA files at the ASI. General pho tos of the park did not reveal any photos of the structure in question. A photo was found from 1979 and in shown below. The photo shows that the house has not had major improvements since 1979, except for the work that is the subject of this COA. It does show that there was not a railing on the porch at that time. It does clearly shows the dual column treatment on the porch. 7 There is evidence that this house used to face Ninth Street, but at some time between the 1897 and the 1913 Sanborn fire maps, the house was moved to its’ current location. A porch on the south side of the house had been removed after the moving of the house, but that is the extent of the information that can be gleaned from the fire insurance maps. The house is a contributing structure to the MacArthur Park National Register Historic District. The district was designated in 1977 and resurveyed in 2006. It is a contributing structure “as is.” To add additional ornamentation to this structure would not comply with the Secretary of interiors Standards #3, which states: “Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements form other buildings, shall not be undertaken.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: One email has been received in opposition to the vinyl windows. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Approval of the following items:  Replacement of broken cracked and warped pieces of siding and trim with pieces of same profile and size.  Decking on front porch.  Railings on front porch with extension to location of removed bench. 3. Denial of the following items:  Replacing vertical siding with horizontal weatherboard.  Built-in bench on front porch.  8x8 fiberglass columns on front porch.  Spindle frieze detail.  Replacement vinyl windows. COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2011 There was a discussion on the procedure concerning the hearing of the item. With only four commissioners present, the discussion concerned if the item could be deferred after it was started, who would be charged for the deferral (if it was deferred) and if the applicant could modify his application by deleting portions of it and if he could come back at a later date with a similar application for the deleted portions. The applicant was offered a deferral since there were five or less commissioners present and the applicant stated that he wanted to hear his item at the meeting. The Commission and the applicant agreed that if portions of the item were deleted, that it could be refiled within 12 months, since it was not heard. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that if the applicant were to file sometime this week that it could be on the October 2011 agenda since the legal ad had not been placed yet. 1979 photo from QQA files at ASI. 8 The commission did not wish for a presentation by Staff. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that she did not think that the vertical siding was original to the structure and questioned if it was appropriate. Stefan Vickery, the applicant, stated that he wanted to amend his application to go back with the vertical siding on the bay and replicate what was there. Commissioner Wiedower asked if any wood was left and if it could be reused. She also asked if the matching horizontal siding was available. Mr. Vickery said that the horizontal siding was available and that he could mill the vertical siding to match. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked what the original porch decking boards were. Mr. Vickery said that they were 5/4 pressure treated pine and were replaced with the same. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham asked about the column changes, what materials they were and how they could be changed out. Commissioner Ripley asked about the distance to the ground form the porch and it was determined that a handrail was indeed needed for safety codes. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she thought that it was a hybrid house with the evidence that it was moved and was probably modified when it was moved. It is not easy to figure out. She continued that the vertical siding is historic now and should go back along with the paired columns. She cannot support the bench on the front porch nor support the window changes. She cannot support the spindle frieze either. Commissioner Ripley asked if the windows were driven by the owner of the building. Mr. Vickery said that they are custom sashes with 6/1 pane arrangement. Mr. Vickery stated that the windows were in bad condition. He did say the trim could be saved and it was a sash replacement. Mr. Vickery stated that the vinyl was white in color. Commissioner Ripley asked what if the windows were not vinyl. Commissioner Vanlandingham stated that saving the windows in the bays was a big step. He continued to speak on the columns and their sizes. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they were to be a box column or solid. Mr. Vickery said that they would be a box column with a 1x wrap on the top and bottom with cove molding on the top. Mr. Vickery amended his application to state the following:  Removal of built-in bench on front porch  Replace bench with railing to match recently installed railing.  Replacing vertical siding on bay to match other bay’s vertical siding.  Removal of 8x8 fiberglass columns on front porch.  Replacement columns to be 6x6” box construction columns with 1x wrap on bottom and top with cove mold on top. Layout to match 1979 photo.  Removal of the vinyl windows from this application.  Removal of the spindle frieze from this application. Commissioner Ripley commented on the mixing and matching of the windows and that he was not inclined to believe that was appropriate. 9 Mr. Minyard restated the application and its modifications for the commission and the applicant. It is as follows:  Replacement of broken cracked and warped pieces of siding and trim with pieces of same profile and size.  Decking on front porch.  Existing Railings on front porch  Removal of built-in bench on front porch  Replace bench with railing to match recently installed railing.  Replacing vertical siding on bay to match other bay’s vertical siding.  Removal of 8x8 fiberglass columns on front porch.  Replacement columns to be 6x6” box construction columns with 1x wrap on bottom and top with cove mold on top. Layout to match 1979 photo.  No window repair or installations of new windows are included in this COA.  No installation of a spindle frieze on porch is included in this COA. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant and Commissioner Ripley seconded the motion. It was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. 10 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: September 12, 2011 APPLICANT: George DeRoeck ADDRESS: 1301 Cumberland COA REQUEST: Iron fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1301 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1, Block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This house was built in ca. 1885. The 2006 survey form states: “This simple Tudor style structure has arched openings, large dominant chimney and steep roof slopes typical of this style.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the installation of an iron fence. The fence will be 34-36” tall. It will be installed along the Cumberland Street frontage, the western portion of the 13th Street frontage, and part of the south property line starting at the southwest corner of the property. The existing fence at the northwest corner of the house will be reinstalled along the 13th Street frontage. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 3, 2008, a COC was approved and issued to Karen Butler Miller Reddig for the painting of the non-masonry portions of the rear structure. It also acknowledged her restoring the two windows on the west façade of the house that were under enforcement. On September 11, 2008, a COC was approved and issued to Karen Butler Miller Reddig for the painting of the trim on the main house. On May 8, 2006, a COA was issued to Karen Butler Miller Reddig for an amendment to the COA per the letter issued by the City Attorney’s office for violations of the previous COA. On February 12, 2004 a COA was issued to Karen Butler Miller Reddig for addition of a secondary structure. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 11 PROPOSAL: The fence will be made of tubular steel. There will be a 2” square steel post every seven feet. The rails are one-inch square tube. The vertical pickets are one-half inch and face welded to the rails. The existing fence, which has one-half inch square pickets, will be modified and places by the 13th Street entrance. The fence will be painted a satin black. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guideline state on page 66: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: 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 physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. West (front) elevation from 2006 Survey North (side) elevation from 2006 Survey Existing fence in front yard to be moved. Sketch of fence to be installed. 12 Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall; 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 house. Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72”), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. 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 fence that is proposed is different from the fence that is located on the front porch, which is also different from the fence that is to be modified and moved to the side of the structure along 13th Street. (There is a similar fence to the one proposed at the southeast corner of 13th and Scott Streets, although the fence there is more ornate than the one proposed here.) Since t his is to be a new fence, it may be appropriate for the fence at the street to be different from the fence at the front porch. In the letter from the applicant dated August 16, 2011, the applicant states that the existing fence will be modified and placed at the end of the proposed fence. The applicant has not stated how that fence will be modified. If the fence materials were to be used to create more linear footage of the new proposed fence, that could be appropriate. Staff does not feel that it is appropriate have three discernable types of fencing on the property. Staff does support the addition of the proposed fence in the locations noted on the submitted plan as shown at the end of this report. Staff does not support additional locations of fences that are not shown in the submitted plans. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. Existing fence at front porch 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Removal of the existing fence at the northwest corner of the house with the first phase of the fence installation. 3. Gate and gateposts shall be same height as the fence. Gateposts may be larger in width, but not in height to the other posts. COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2011 The applicant was offered a deferral since there were five or less commissioners present and the applicant stated that he wanted to hear his item at the meeting. Staff made a brief presentation to the Commission and stated that the Staff recommendation was forthcoming. Dr. George DeRoeck, the applicant, made a short presentation to the commission. He stated that the fence in the application was Victorian, but he stated that he could not find a “Tudor” fence but thought that this fence was suitable. He stated that other fences in the area were more ornate than this one proposed. He wants to improve his property. Commissioner Wiedower clarified where the fence was to be located. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked about the other fence that was to be reused. Dr. DeRoeck stated that it was an office and that he did not live there. He stated that he worked with Accent Iron Works to come up with the design. Commissioner Ripley clarified whether the fence was and stated that code did not dictate that a fence be on the front porch. Commissioner Vanlandingham commented that the fence could be taken down. Dr. DeRoeck said that he had intended to keep the porch railing but add new. Chairman Marshall Peters asked if the south side of the fence was to go back to the wood fence on his property. He stated yes. To clarify for the commission, the proposed fence will start on the south property line at his 6’ wood fence, go along south property line to Cumberland Street, along Cumberland Street to the street corner (including a gate), along 13th street to the rear of the house, and then return to the house at the corner as shown on the drawings. Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff Recommendation was to support the fence as filed, in the location as specified in his meeting but not to support the reuse of the fence that is to be removed anywhere on the property along with the gate and post comments in the printed recommendation. Commissioner Ripley questioned the functionality of reusing the fence at the driveway in the rear from a functional and aesthetic standpoint. Dr. DeRoeck amended his application to remove the use of the existing fence and to place it where described in he meeting. No persons spoke in the public comment stage. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant and Commissioner Ripley seconded the motion. It was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. 14 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: September 12, 2011 APPLICANT: Ron Ross, Parks and Recreation ADDRESS: 503 East Ninth Street COA REQUEST: Addition of Pulaski County Lane to south boundary of park running from McMath Street to Commerce Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “That part NW lying E of Quapaw Line W of McAlmont Street & North of E 13th Street in Township 1N, Range 12 W Sections 2 and 11, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arsenal building was built in the 1840’s and is a national landmark, the highest possible recognition of a historic building. The structure is a contributing structure in the district. This is the first public park in the city and the namesake of the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the Addition of Pulaski County Lane to south boundary of park running from McMath Street to Commerce Street. This proposal is to add a drive with parking on both sides to run east west along the south edge of the park south of the existing pond. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: Numerous COA’s have been approved for the park in general. The latest COAs, issued on November 9, 2009 was for the Plaza development on the front lawn and on September 13, 2010 for new signage for the MacArthur Museum of Military History and the Korean Memorial. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 15 PROPOSAL: This proposal is to add an east-west drive to the south of the park from McMath to Commerce. The eastern terminus will feature a roundabout. The drive will feature parallel parking on both sides of the drive with cutouts for trees. Flowering Cherry trees will be planted along the entirety of the drive combined with other plantings as shown on the sketches provided. A continuous sidewalk will be installed on the northern side of the drive separated from the drive by a grass strip. The improvements to McMath are not part of this COA. They are located in the public right-of-way. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Historic District Commission was invited to the presentations of the MacArthur Park Master Plan and some commissioners did attend. The Master Plan was conceptual and in the HDC meeting of November 10, 2008, the minutes reflect that the HDC will review the individual phases as they are installed, not the master plan as a whole. The Master Plan has been followed in some instances (design of signage along 9th Street), but not in other instances (the recently dedicated plaza on the front lawn was not shown in the Master Plan). The HDC did review both of these items in their meetings and approved both. The state law clearly states that of the items to be reviewed, one is paving. This proposed drive is to be reviewed in order for the Commission to be in adherence with state law. There was a drive on the south side of the park in the past. The Sanborn maps did not show the actual location of the drive. Since this is not a “pure restoration of the drive” a different location could be appropriate. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standard # 3 addresses this. “Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.” Placing the drive in a general location with contemporary materials and planting is in adherence with the standard. Standard # 1 states: “A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.” This drive on the south end of the park increases the availability of the park for users. Lastly, Standard # 10 states: “New additions and adjacent or related new cons truction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” In the future, this drive could be removed and the landscape restored to its current state. The Arsenal building and the Parade Grounds immediately south of the Arsenal building are the most historic aspects of the park. There are scattered memorials that are also of historic importance to the park. This installation of the drive and roundabout do not interfere with the historic aspects of the Arsenal or the parade grounds. Staff believes that the addition of the drive and the roundabout is appropriate. Plan of entire park from Master Plan 16 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2011 The applicant was offered a deferral since there were five or less commissioners present and the applicant stated that he wanted to hear his item at the meeting. Ron Ross, the applicant, briefly explained the application. Brian Minyard, Staff, reminded Mr. Ross that the application did not include McMath Drive and that comments should be limited to the Pulaski County Lane portion of the improvements. The lane will be two 10’ wide travel lanes with parking on both sides with drainage swales, plantings, flowering cherry trees, irrigation system, etc. along the length of the lane. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the tennis court. Mr. Ross said that part of the hard surface would be retained for bleachers. Commissioner Wiedower continued on the master Plan, and that this road may promote more traffic, especially on weekends and promote cruising. Mr. Ross said the concept was to provide future access to later development in the park. Commissioner Wiedower asked if federal funds were being used. Stephan McAteer said that it was county funds being used. Commissioner Wiedower continued that she anticipated that law school traffic going westbound would move the bottleneck form McMath and Ninth to Commerce and Ninth Street. Mr. Ross stated that the traffic engineering department at the City had signed off on the plans. McClelland Engineers had designed the plans and had conversations with the City traffic engineers. Commissioner Vanlandingham stated that originally, the park had four roads surrounding it (prior to the freeway) and that this was putting it back the way it used to be. Commissioner Wiedower commented about trash and maintenance issues in the park. Carolyn Newbern spoke in favor of the application with increased usage of the park and to revitalize the southern portion of the park. Byl Harrell, owner of property at Eleventh and McMath, was concerned why the COA did not include McMath. Mr. Minyard stated that the commission did not review work that was in the right-of-ways, such as utility structures, road improvements, signage, etc. The state law does specifically state “pavement” as an item to be reviewed and since the lane does go thought the park, it was the subject of a COA as the other improvements to the park have been. Keith Canfield, a resident of the area, uses the park regularly and spoke in favor of the application. He spoke of the curvy layout of the lane and the sustainability of the features, LED lighting, and the LID (low impact development) strategies used for the design. George Campbell, a resident of Quapaw Towers, stated that there was no opposition from the residents at the Tower. Page Wilson stated that the edges of the park were important and that the proposed road is curvy, to not allow high-speed travel. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she was not in opposition to the lane, but that she wanted a well designed road that would still be an asset later on instead of being and eyesore due to lack of maintenance. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that he thought it would be an asset in the future with the additional development that would be occurring in the park. Byl Harrell stated that his issue was not with the Lane but was with McMath. He commented that he may have to change the plans for his property because of the street improvements, namely the median. It was discussed and Mr. Harrell will go to Parks and Recreation to voice his concern over the new street design and then maybe to the county. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as submitted and Commissioner Vanlandingham seconded the motion. It was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:45 p.m. Attest: 17 !t J 11-7 -O 11 Date i Date