Loading...
HDC_06 09 20081 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 9, 2008, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities’ Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Kay Tatum Julie Wiedower Susan Bell Wesley Walls Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Eve Gieringer Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Charles Marratt Greg Fetzer Paul Privat Elaine Potter II. Approval of Minutes a March 24, 2008 Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to approve the revised minutes with comments noted. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. b April 14, 2008 Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the revised minutes with comments noted. Commissioner Bell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusals. Kay Tatum was not present at the meeting. c May 12, 2008 Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the revised minutes with comments noted. Commissioner Tatum seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: June 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Paul Reyes ADDRESS: 1015 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Privacy Fence On June 2, 2008, Staff received an email confirming a phone conversation that the applicant wished to withdraw his application. According to the bylaws, the applicant must wait one year before resubmitting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request to withdraw. COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 Eve Gieringer, Staff made a short presentation concerning the withdrawal. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to approval the withdrawal and Commissioner Julie Wiedower seconded. The motion was approved 5 ayes, and 0 noes. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 3 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: June 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Elaine Potter ADDRESS: 419 E 10th Street COA REQUEST: Install storage shed PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 419 E 10th Street. The property’s legal description is “The north 5’ of the East 58’ of Lot 11 and the East 58’ of Lot 12, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (I being the highest and III being the lowest). The 1988 survey states that it is a Non- contributing Structure to the district built around 1900-1910 with major alterations to it in the past. The proposal is to install a storage shed on the property. The shed would be in the southwest corner of the property in the back corner of the lot. The applicant has also filed an application with the Board of Adjustment for the placement of the accessory structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 18, 1999, an extension of the COA was approved to allow for the completion of the ongoing project at the site. It noted that the anticipated completion date was in the spring of 1999. No other records of the original COA were located in the files. 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 4 View of proposed location from Commerce Street Detail from GIS with shed sited on property PROPOSAL: The proposal is to add a 6’ x 8’ pre-fab storage building in the southwest corner of the property. It will sit 2’ off the south side of the lot and 3’ off the west side of the lot. It is approximately 6 1/2’ feet tall. The building will be painted to be similar colors to the existing house. In the sketch above titled “Detail from GIS with shed sited on property,” the shed, shown in black, is approximate size and location relative to the other buildings. The Guidelines state on page 63 under the heading of “New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings”: 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. Existing north (front) elevation View of proposed location from 10th Street 5 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.) Both the neighborhood setting and the individual building site are important to consider when altering an existing building or constructing a new one. The character-defining elements of the neighborhood, as they relate to individual structures, should be maintained. These include set- backs; entrance orientation; placement and character of landscaping; circulation systems and surfacing; the placement of parking areas; lighting; mechanical systems and service areas. The size of the shed is appropriate to the size of the lot and the neighborhood; and the placement is within a historical context. The shed will not have any windows. It will be covered with sheets of siding that has vertical grooves. It will have vertical trim boards on the corners and trim around the door of 1x3’s and 1x4. The roof will be a low-pitched roof with three tab shingles. 6 The applicant states that the placement will allow an existing large tree to remain. This application will be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for the placement of the accessory structure. The code requires a 60’ setback on the property from the front property line. The proposed accessory structure is located 49’ from the front (east) property line, as the property is a 58’ x 55’. The code also requires 3’ setbacks from all side and rear property lines. She is asking for a two-foot setback on the south side. The code also requires a 6’ separation between all buildings. That requirement has been met. The applicant has filed for the June 30, 2008 Board of Adjustment agenda for front and side setback variances. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Board of Adjustment. 2. Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval. 3. Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 Ever Gieringer, Staff, made a presentation on the project. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if the building was visible from the street. Ms. Gieringer sated that it was so. Chairman Peters asked if there were any question of Staff. Charles Marratt stated that he was in favor of the shed and that Richard Butler, area property owner, was in favor. Commissioner Kay Tatum suggested that the owner etch all for the items that were going to be stored in the shed for identity purposes. Commissioner Walls asked about the pintable surfaces of the shed. Ms. Elaine Potter stated that it would be painted to match the house. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the shed with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Julie Wiedower seconded the motion and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. Instructions were given to Ms. Potter by Staff on obtaining her permits, etc. 7 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. DATE: June 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Paul Privat and William “Greg” Fetzer ADDRESS: 618 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Retaining Wall and Iron Fence along street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 618 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 3 MacArthur Place Neighborhood Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This house is a non-contributing structure built in 2006. The proposal is to build a brick retaining wall with an iron fence and gate along the front property line. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: In July 10, 1998, a COA was denied to Second Baptist Church for the installation of a parking lot. On July 14, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for the construction of a single-family home on this site along with two others on Rock and Cumberland Streets. Included in this application was an approval of an iron fence along Rock Street. PROPOSAL: The proposal is to build a 14 inch tall retaining wall from brick with a soldier course on top. This brick will match the house. The brick wall will be the same height as the stone retaining wall to the south at 620 and 624 Rock Street. An iron fence will be installed on the top of the retaining wall and be the same height as the fence to the south at 620 and 624 Rock Street. The gate will be set back onto the property as the ones are to the south. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 I. Location of Project 8 Gate at 620 Rock View from 7th and Rock Street Gate at 624 Rock Street Post at 620 and 624 Rock Existing front elevation Existing front walk and sidewalk 9 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 66: 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. 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. This application, being a new infill house, may need to be analyzed differently than a historic home in the same block. The last paragraph quoted above does state that retaining walls are discouraged in the front yard, but the exceptions listed thereafter do 10 seem to pertain to this application. The front yard is small and the house is in close proximity to the street, as is 620 and 624 Rock Street. The retaining wall would be the same height and would continue the wall from the two houses to the south. The walls at 620 and 624 are of stone and in good condition. This new wall would be differentiated from the historic wall since it would be of brick that matches the house. The top surface of the wall will be brick unlike the mortar bed cap on the stone wall. It would be a modern addition to the neighborhood without necessarily evoking a false sense of history. The iron fence on 620 and 624 are rather plain with accents on the post only. The iron pickets have a ground point on them instead of finials with two horizontal rails. The posts, as shown on the right, are ornamented and are the same on both houses. The posts are more heavily ornamented. The fences are painted black. The photo to the right shows a portion of the gate. The gates at 620 and 624 are the same. The COA previously approved for this site in July 2005 contained an iron fence along Rock Street. It is shown on the right. It featured two to three inch square posts with ball finials, two rails and square pickets with fleur-de-lis finials on the pickets. Any additional fence on this block should be of the same size and scale as the older fences on the block. The applicant has fulfilled this requirement. However, the application calls for a much more elaborate fence than has been installed in the past. Any new iron fence should not to evoke a false sense of history or an implied earlier date of construction. The Secretary of Interior Standards state: 3. 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. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Posts at 620 and 624 Previously approved fence at 618 Rock 11 The proposed fence features oversized posts with ample ornamentation and elaborate oversized finials. The sketch, shown on the last page of the write up, shows ten posts across the front of the property including six near the gate. The fence will feature three rails, pickets of two different alternating heights with finials both above with and below the top rail of the fence. The fence is illustrated below. The options on the gates are shown to the right. The applicant has proposed the gate shown above, but has asked to include the illustration of the alternate gates for the commission to review. Staff believes that a more simple fence and gate more in line with the previously approved fence and gate would be more in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, not invoke a false sense of history and be more in character with the architecture of the Proposed Fence shown without retaining wall Sample gates 12 house. If pictorial evidence was present to show an iron fence was present at some time in the past on this site, then there could be the argument to duplicate the fence. However, Staff is not aware of such documentation at the time of this writing, and barring such, recommends a simpler fence be approved. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would recuse from this item because of a financial interest. She owns property at 624 Rock Street, within 150’ of the property. There was a discussion on the area of influence on the application. Eve Gieringer, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked for clarification about the previously approved fence on the site. Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that it was part of the original approval of all three houses. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the age of the fence of 620 and 624 Rock Street. Mr. Minyard stated that the ornamental posts appeared to be historic, but was unsure of the age of the fence. Charles Marratt stated that his company installed the fence in 1978. The ornamental posts were already there as well as the walls. Mr. Fetzer said that the goal was to show that the 620 & 624 posts were different from what was approved by Ms. Boyd. They wanted to follow the style of the posts next door and keep the fence level and simple. He wanted to stay with the simple finial of 620 & 624 on the fence. Mr. Privat added that they wanted a more decorative fence with security in mind. Ms. Gieringer asked the applicant to verify their application since there was a discrepancy between what was filed and what was being discussed in the meeting. The applicants did revise their application with a simple gate and fence with posts to duplicate the ones at 620 and 624. Commissioner Walls asked if the “Texas Posts” were standard pieces or if they were custom. The answer was that they are custom and could be fabricated to match. Commissioner Walls continued that he was not opposed to matching the scale and mass of the posts, but not to match the post exactly, it was not appropriate to match them exactly. 13 Chairman Marshall Peters asked if Charles Marratt could speck for the applicant. If he could not, then Mr. Marratt would be held to citizen response only. Mr. Greg Fetzer and Mr. Paul Privat acknowledged that Mr. Marratt would speak for them in the application. Commissioner Julie Wiedower left the meeting at 5:30. Brian Minyard, Staff, spoke about invoking a false sense of history by duplicating a historic post on the site. A similar mass and less ornate could be acceptable. It was discussed that the large posts on 620 and 624 are historic. Mr. Fetzer stated that they could match the fence at 620 & 624 with a stylistic fence. Texas iron has a line of simple posts available. A discussion occurred about building a wall and adding the fence later. Discussion continued about deferring the application. A question was posed of counsel if they dropped the fence from the application if that would not require them to wait a year to reapply. Debra Weldon, of the city attorney’s office said yes with renotification. Staff would recommend that the applicant defer and come back in one month with very specific details of what the fence would look like. Mr. Privat asked what if the proposal was to duplicate the fence as shown on page 2 as Gate at 620 Rock. Chairman Peters said that would not be acceptable. Mr. Fetzer asked about the previously approved fence as shown on page 4. He continued to ask what if the application was to replicate the previously approved fence. Staff suggested that if the applicant amended their application to state the 14” high retaining wall; to duplicate the fence previously approved on the site; with the height of the fence as shown in the drawing submitted; using 3” posts on all corner and gate posts; with the gate matching the fence; then Staff would be in support of the application. The applicant amended their application. Staff verbalized the application to state that the posts would be 4“ square posts to support the weight of the gate and 3” posts everywhere else with appropriate sized ball finials on the posts. The fence would be the same height as proposed as shown on page 9, with two horizontal rails and square pickets with fleur-de-lis finals on the top of each picket. Retaining wall is to be as proposed with solider course on top. The applicant agreed. The motion to approve the fence as amended as verbalized by Staff with obtaining a building permit within 90 days and finishing the project 180 days later. The applicant and the agent heard the Staff review the items and they amended the application (all three) to be as stated by staff. Commissioner Susan Bell made a motion to approve the application as amended with amended Staff recommendations. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion passed with 3 ayes, 1 absent and 1 recusal. Instructions were given to the applicant. 14 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Three. DATE: June 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Tonya Robinson-Fisher ADDRESS: 501 E 7th Street COA REQUEST: Replace all Windows and Replace wire fence along street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 501 E 7th Street. The property’s legal description is the “North 100 feet of lot 1 block 4 Johnson’s addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 501 East 7th Street was built in the 1960s and it is a non-contributing structure, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 survey lists it as a vernacular cottage. This application is to replace all windows and replace wire fence along street. The bent wire fence along 7th Street would be removed and replaced with an ornamental iron fence with walk gate and drive gate. The drive gate would be operated with an automatic opener/closer. The replacement windows would be an all vinyl window with six over six panes with fiberglass half screens. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 7, 2005, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning a new gate on the property. A COA was needed, but it was never filed. On July 9, 2007, a COA was issued for the replacement of columns on the front porch, installing a privacy fence in the rear yard and painting the brick structure. The painting of the brick structure and the front porch column portion of the application were due to an enforcement issue. 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 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The replacement widows are to be a “solid vinyl construction” with “Fusion welded frame and sashes.” They are white in color with a fiberglass half screen on the lower sash. They are tilt in windows for easier cleaning. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states: 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. 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. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. The house, which is not listed as contributing as of the 1988 survey, is still is recognized as a record of its time. The house was built in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s. Although the bulk of the historic homes in the district are not of this period, there are two ranch style houses in the district. The wire fence along 7th Street probably predates the house. The Guidelines state on page 66: 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. Fence: The majority of the front fence is the bent wire fence. The walk gate and the fence sections remains as so, but the drive gate was replaced in 2005 with a chain link gate. Later, at Staff’s request, the drive gate was painted black to match the historic gate and fence. The existing fence is bowed in places, but is still structurally sound. 16 The fence could be cleaned of its’ rust and repainted in a black paint for metal applications as the Secretary of Interior Stands state in section 2 and 6 as quoted above. Portions of the east fence was bent wire fence but was replaced with a wood privacy fence in the 2007 COA. The proposal is to replace the fence with an ornamental iron fence as shown below. Gate and Fence Detail Existing front gate Existing fence and fence to east Existing drive gate and fence to west 17 The fence features square posts with ball finials. The fence has three rails with two near the top. The pickets do not have finials, but ground points. The walk gate will feature an arched top with a cross bar pattern in the center of the gate. The driveway gate will be flat across the top with a cross bar pattern on it. The driveway gate will be motorized to swing into the property. The bent wire is historic to the district, although not of the same period as the house. It does need to be maintained in a better fashion, as it needs sanded, primed, and painted. The proposed fence is simple enough in design to be compatible with the district. If constructed to a similar height as the other adjacent fences, it could “fit in” with the neighborhood. Windows: The windows are double hung wood windows with weights and pulleys. The windows are in need of repair as some of the cords may have been broken/removed and some of the windows do not close properly. The existing windows as shown on the left above are 8 over 8 windows. (The window pictured on the left is open.) The security bars have been on the house since at least 1978. The proposed windows are shown to be a six over six window of all vinyl construction with a fiberglass half screen as shown below left. Existing window Proposed Window The Secretary of Interior Standards states that repairing is preferable to replacement. If something is replaced, it should be replaced with similar materials. See page two of this report for the actual quote. The wood double hung windows should be examined by a contractor skilled in historic preservation techniques to show that the windows are deteriorated beyond repair. If a sash has rotten wood on it, a wood sash can be custom made for the window. Cords to operate the windows can be replaced and make the windows operable. The applicant has not provided proof that the windows are beyond repair. 18 The applicant has proposed an all vinyl window as replacement windows. The secretary of the Interiors standards state in number 6 as quoted on page 2 of this report that if replaced, it “shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.” Vinyl windows with a simulated 6 over 6 do not match the old windows in design, visual thickness of jambs and muntins/mullions, and most importantly materials. Plastic vinyl windows were not available when the house was constructed. If the windows were proven repairable, Staff would suggest the repair of the windows according to restoration standards and the installation of storm windows with full screens that would preserve the original windows while improving energy efficiency of the home. Storm windows with operable lower sashes would maintain the functionality of the windows. If the windows do prove to be beyond repair, Staff believes the alternatives to be (listed in priority from highest to lowest): 1) replacement all wood sashes with higher efficiency glass utilizing the existing pulleys and weights, 2) replacement of the sashes with a wood sash clad in metal or vinyl utilizing different movement and locking mechanisms, or 3) replacement of the entire window unit with a wood window clad in metal or vinyl. All of these options should maintain the 8 over 8 pane arrangement. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Fence Replacement: Approval with the following conditions: a. Obtaining a building permit within 90 days of obtaining approval. b. Project to be completed within 180 days of obtaining permit. c. Fence, openers, and all hardware to be painted black. d. No portion of fence structure shall be located in the right of way, nor swing into the right of way. e. Operation of gate shall be remotely operated, without the control box, control panel, etc being placed on a pole in the right of way or on the property. 2. Window Replacement: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: June 9, 2008 The commission was informed that the applicant had not completed the notice of adjoining property owners as required. The applicant had been informed by Staff that she had not met her deadline for notification. Staff requested a deferral until the July 2008 hearing. Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to defer and Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded. The motion to defer was passed with a vote or 4 ayes and 1 absent. 19 III. Other Matters a. Enforcement matters Staff reported that the two items of Jay Core are still outstanding. Another case, 501 E 7th Street, Ms. Fisher, will be heard at the July 2008 hearing. A discussion was held about window air conditioner unit and whether they could be replaced with new units. On the 6th and Sherman house, Staff is unable to provide proof that the air conditioners were or were not in place at certain dates. Discussion continued whether the new owner installed them or if they were purchased with the property. It was decided that this would be a good topic for a work session. Staff stated that he expected to obtain more information from the he property owner and discussion could continue next month. The commission requested that Staff photograph all Certificates of Compliance before signing them for the files. Chairman Peters asked about two houses on Commerce Street. No work has been done on them structures in some time. b. Grants / Travel to New Orleans Details were discussed on the grant money and trip. Staff is to check on the NAPC receipts for reimbursement. CAMP (Commission Assistance Mentoring Program) is included in the grant and commissioners will be expected to attend in Spring 2009. c. RFQ for Preservation Plan The contract for the consultant is in the hands of the city attorney’s office for review and editing. The contract is expected to be signed before the next meeting. d. Area of influence for Arkansas Arts Center item to be heard on July 14, 2008. Staff presented the item for consideration of the commission. The Arts Center is requesting to place a sign at the corner of 9th and Commerce and a screening wall for a air conditioning unit on the corner of the building at 9th and Commerce. The applicant has requested to not be required to notify all property owners within 150’ of the park property. Instead, they would propose to notify property owners within 150’ of the improvements. The Commission was issued maps with three options, and after discussion, recommended that the property owners within 150’ of the improvements be notified. A motion was made to that effect by Commissioner Walls and was seconded by Commissioner Tatum. The motion passed with 4 ayes, and 1 absent. e. A discussion was held on changing the date of the next scheduled meeting. The meeting date was not changed because of the discussion. f. Citizen Communication There were not citizens present. A new Commissioner, Bob Wood, of 624 6th Street was introduced to the commission. He will be replacing Kay Tatum. VI. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Attest: � 4 L6AL Chair Secretary/Staff 20 Z. Date Date