HDC_11 13 2017
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, November 13, 2017, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Chair Dick Kelley
Vice Chair Ted Holder
Jeremiah Russell
Lauren Frederick
Dale Pekar
Amber Jones
Robert Hodge
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Denise Ennett
Loretta Hendrix
Director Erma Hendrix
Callie Williams
Approval of Minute
Voice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the October 9, 2017 minutes as submitted.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0
noes.
Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items.
Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the
internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda
being posted online.
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 14
DATE: November 13, 2017
APPLICANT: Loretta J Hendrix and AHPP
ADDRESS: 1304 & 1306 Wright Avenue
REQUEST: Nomination of the Arkansas State Teacher’s Association Complex to the
National Register
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1304 & 1306 Wright Avenue. The property’s legal description
is “All 31 32 & 40 W1/2 33 W 1/2 S173' OF 38-W1/2 39 & E 1/2 S 173' OF 39” and “E1/2 33 All
34 & 35 & S163' OF 36 & 37 & E1/2 38 & N60' W 1/2 38 & N60' OF 39” of block 40 of the
Centennial Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IV A.
Location of Arkansas State Teachers Association Complex
Page 3 of 14
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Arkansas State Teacher’s
Association Complex to the National Register. The nomination states:
“The Arkansas Teachers Association Headquarters Building and the Professional
Services
Building are located along the northern side of W right Avenue, between Pulaski
Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive. The Arkansas Teachers Association
Headquarters Building and the Professional Services Building were both designed
by the architectural firm of George Henry Tschiemer & Associates of Pine Bluff,
Arkansas, in the early 1960s. The two lots along Wright Avenue were originally
purchased from the Little Rock School District in early 1961 and the design of the
two buildings followed in 1961 and 1962. Both buildings were constructed by the
Smith Brothers General Contractors of North Little Rock, Arkansas, and completed
by 1965. Both structures were designed in the Modem style, with Miesian
influences.
“The Arkansas Teachers Association (A TA) Headquarters Building and the
Professional Services Building are being nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A, with state wide significance, for their association
with the social and education related history of the Civil-rights movement in Little
Rock and the State of Arkansas during the 1960s, specifically in relation to the
efforts of the Council on Community Affairs (COCA) and the Arkansas Teachers
Association (ATA) to end segregation and racial discrimination in various public and
private spaces in Little Rock and school districts across the State of Arkansas.”
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 defined as: Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 13, 2017
Callie Williams, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, made a brief presentation to the
Commission on the item. She stated that the item would go to the State Review Board in early
December 2017. Brian Minyard, Staff, noted that the Commission did get one letter in support
from the QQA dated October 30, 2017. The staff recommendation is for inclusion into the
National Register.
Commissioner Amber Jones asked if the owner sought out the nomination. Ms. Williams
commented that it was brought forward by Loretta Hendrix and that Ms. Hendrix did most of the
original research.
Loretta Hendrix spoke in favor of the application. She commented that she also worked on the
Dunbar nomination. She stated that Ms. Williams brought the issue of Civil Rights into the
nomination for the project. She continued that as a child, this location resonated as to being
something different, the education of Negroes, not necessarily a civil rights location. She
continued that on November 27th, she is scheduled to speak to the retired teachers foundation
on this building. She thanks the Commission for the recommendation of support.
Page 4 of 14
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell made motion to support the nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Rob Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a
vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Page 5 of 14
DATE: November 13, 2017
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District wide
REQUEST: Committee for preapplication meeting
During one of the Preservation Implementation Committee meetings, there was discussion of
the possibility of a preapplication meeting between applicants, staff, and commission members
for infill buildings. Staff would like to present this item to the full commission for discussion and
possible implementation. Staff has spoken with Catherine Barrier, AHPP CLG coordinator, and
she is unsure if any other Arkansas CLG practices this mandatory preapplication meeting. She
did mention that Russellville has started along this path, but has not completed it. A call was
made to Kurt Jones, Staff for Russellville CLG, and they have not implemented anything thus
far. Also, see QQA letter attached to the end of this item.
The purpose of the pre-application meeting would be to have a public meeting (meaning that the
press is alerted that a meeting will be held with two or more commissioners present) with the
applicants, the applicant’s architects, designers, commission members, and staff to discuss
upcoming projects on a conceptual level or preliminary design level. This has the possibilities of
several positives. 1) The applicant can save design money and time by discerning what aspect
of the project is of concern to the commissioners, 2) This can save multiple hearings on the
same project that are required by edits and redraws, and 3) This can build goodwill between
the commission and the public by listening and working with the applicants in an informal
environment.
The negative of this would be 1) the tendency of commissioners to design the project for the
applicants, and 2) Some applicant may not be ready for their project to go public at the time of
the preapplication meeting.
There are multiple factors to consider on how this would work.
Mandatory or voluntary: The original discussion was mandatory for all infill buildings.
Discussions could be beneficial for all applicants, rehab or infill. What if they were individually
listed on national register, have conservation easements, are contributing versus non-
contributing?
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. VII C.
Page 6 of 14
Size of project: Do major additions to structures in the district require a pre-application
meeting? What would be the threshold of the addition size? A percentage increase or a
minimum of ‘x’ square feet or whichever is smaller?
Time of meeting: Some commissions have met immediately before or after the regular
hearing. This could stretch out the meeting at the end of the work day, but would limit the
meetings to once a month. With the deadline for filing the Friday before the hearing, Applicants
may be tempted to try to file the next morning and ask for exemptions to the deadline. A pre-
application meeting after the legal ad was published and in the middle of the cycle, could give
the applicant time to finish or revise drawings in time for the normal filing deadline.
Location of meeting: Planning Commission has subdivision meetings in the boardroom with
the addition of tables on the floor of the boardroom which gives you more of a workgroup
environment. Another option would be to have it in the Planning Department conference room
which holds a dozen people.
How many commissioners: The PIC (Preservation Implementation Committee) has three of
the seven commissioners which is less than a quorum. The Planning Commission has 2
committees, the Subdivision and the Plans committee, which are five members out of an eleven
member commission. Again, this is one less than a quorum. These meetings would be
required to have notification of the press because there would be two or more commissioners
present. Discussions in the PIC meetings focused on the members consisting of the Chair, the
QQA representative and the architect.
Any comments made in the pre application meetings would be considered non-binding. Any
applicant may request a pre-application meeting.
The HDC Bylaws state under Article III Officers 1 c:
c. The Chair shall present to the Commission for its approval the names of all
persons appointed to committees established by the Commission. The Chair shall
designate one (1) member of such committee to serve as the committee Chair.
The Little Rock Planning commission mandates preapplication conferences on Planned Zoning
districts and plats over ten acres. These are with Staff only.
The following text describes other committees and how they are structured.
The Planning Commission Bylaws describe Standing Committees and their role.
A. Standing Committees - Standing Committees may be created by the Planning
Commission and charged with such duties as the Commission deems
necessary or desirable. Such Committees shall be composed of two or more
Commissioners, but less than a quorum of the full Commission, and shall
hold membership for one year or until succeeded.
1. The Subdivision Committee shall be composed of five (5) members
appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission
members only. The Committee shall act as a review body for all
conditional use, site plan and planned zoning development issues in
Page 7 of 14
addition to platting matters.
2. The Plans Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by
the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only.
The Plans Committee shall act as a review body for all master plan
elements, ordinance amendments and other project activities as may
occur from time to time as referred by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: October 9, 2017
Staff recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and
any other so discovered.
COMMISSION ACTION: October 9, 2017
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item to the Commission. He clarified that this was a
product of the guidelines revision, not the Preservation Implementation meetings. He added an
update on different cities in Arkansas and what they do. Russellville has not implemented these
meetings. Sandra Smith in North Little Rock stated that their attorney has encouraged them to
have these meetings, but no process has been formalized. Fort Smith has a set up similar to
Little Rock. They have other pre-application meetings for zoning and subdivision items. They
are set up by ordinance. They encourage meeting for HDC but there is not a formalized
process.
Mr. Minyard spoke to the time of the meeting whether it is at the end of the public hearing or a
different time and place.
Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects, said that a pre-application meeting would be a good thing to
take a pulse on what could be or would be approved. He thinks that they could get to a rough
design quicker and spend less time on schematic design. He said that it would be a benefit to
design professionals and that a developer may save design dollars.
James Sullivan, AMR Architects, supports the idea of meetings to make adjustments and can
work towards solutions with more input from the Commission.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked Mr. Barksdale if he looked at the guidelines and the
response was yes. Commissioner Russell asked if they found the new guidelines more helpful.
Mr. Barksdale said that they would be more helpful. Ambiguities will always be there, but they
are better than the old ones. Commissioner Russell said that they did not want to design by
committee and beholden to the whims of the opinion. Mr. Barksdale stated that unless you
have a strict code like Seaside, Florida, the guidelines are unable to come up with all of the
possibilities that could appear. He knows that the conversations would be non-binding and
there could be some comfort level or change directions on the design.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked him if he thought it should be mandatory or voluntary. Mr.
Barksdale said that he would prefer voluntary but may not want to wait for filing deadlines.
Commissioner Kelley said that the 900 Scott Street apartments are looking good.
Vice Chair Ted Holder thought that it would be beneficial to have the meeting mandatory for
larger scale projects. He thought it was a good idea overall, and could lessen anxiety. He
asked Staff whether this would be part of the commission or the whole membership of the
Page 8 of 14
commission. Mr. Minyard responded that the thought was that it would be three members of the
commission. Three cannot be a quorum.
Commissioner Amber Jones commented that Capitol Zoning District has three meetings on
each item with the advisory committees. She said that it might be better to make it voluntary,
but it may be better for first time applicants to go through the process. They do not know what
they do not know. She can see both sides of the argument. Commissioner Russell related his
experience in working with Jennifer Carmen on the porch renovations on Scott Street. He
would encourage it for any applicant. He recommended going through the guidelines with the
applicants. He mentioned 1014 Rock Street with the roof changes and that it could have
reduced the number of meetings for them.
Commissioner Pekar commented that if the committee liked it and then the whole commission
voted it down, would it be better to have the whole commission present at the pre-application
meeting. Chair Kelley said with a committee, it would be non-binding. Commissioner Russell
added that it would be for the commissioners on the committee to say that they had concerns if
it fit the guidelines, not if they would vote for it or not.
Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if it could delay projects. Vice Chair Holder said that it
depended on how it was set up. Capitol Zoning committees record whether they recommend or
not. This committee will not make recommendations. Commissioner Russell stated they the
committee could make recommendations based on the guidelines, scale, proportion, etc. The
comments would be non-binding and the committee would not be casting a vote on the item.
Vice Chair Holder suggested they only speak of the guidelines, whether they meet them or not.
Commissioner Russell asked if we had minutes of the Pre-application meeting, would those
become part of the record.
Chair Kelley asked for a motion on the item. Commissioner Russell made a motion for the
Commission to explore creating a committee for the purpose of pre-application meetings.
Commissioner Pekar seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Frederick).
Chair Kelley spoke of how this topic would be discussed and when. Would it be working
sessions like the guidelines or do we do it in a public hearing. Mr. Minyard said that it could stay
at the bottom of the agenda until it is ready to present to legal for their analysis. Or, they could
go down the list and continue to discuss it tonight. The commission will need to come up with
some definite answers and language on each of those topics plus others.
The conversations continued with Commissioner Russell suggesting that it be kept as part of
the regular agenda but not have any citizen comment on the items, to maybe close the public
hearing portion and then have the discussion afterwards. He asked if it would be part of the
minutes if it was held after the meeting. Ms. Weldon said that it would be pos sible to close the
public hearing and have the discussion afterwards but the discussions would be included in the
minutes. Commissioner Russell advocated that the meetings be after the regular hearing and
the committee of three stay afterwards to have the pre-application meeting.
Commissioner Jones commented that if the regular agenda was long, what would happen to the
pre-application meeting items and would they be deferred to the next month.
Page 9 of 14
Mr. Minyard said that it depended on the timing of the meeting. The filing deadline for the next
hearing is the Friday before. The applicants will need time to revise their drawings before the
filing deadline. The question is whether they want the preapplication meeting a full month
before the filing deadline or if they want it two or three weeks before. Commissioner Russell
suggested having at least two weeks to revise the drawings before the filing deadline.
Vice Chair Holder suggested that it be held somewhere else and not be such a formal meeting.
Commissioner Jones asked in the last two years would have benefitted from a pre-application
meeting. Commissioner Russell responded several. She asked Mr. Barksdale if it would have
been beneficial and if he would have attended a pre-application meeting. He responded yes to
both. Mr. Sullivan said that on small jobs, you would need to stress benefits of coming to the
meeting or make it mandatory in some instances. Vice Chair said that some small scale
applications would have benefited from a pre-application meeting.
Chair Kelley asked about the notification of property owners for a pre-application meeting. Mr.
Minyard noted that the press would need to be notified but that no notification of neighbors
would be necessary at that time. The meeting dates could be set in the calendar that was
adopted at the end of the year. A public hearing would be advertised on the city website but
would not require notice of property owners in the area of influence. Ms. Weldon said that she
would look into if the applicants would have to send out two sets of certified mail. She will also
look at other issues before the next meeting. Mr. Minyard added that the pre-application
meeting, by definition, would be before any application would be filed which could make a
difference on what Ms. Weldon has to research. Ms. Weldon asked what would be different in
what Staff has done before in meeting with the applicants before filing. Mr. Minyard said that
Staff would continue to do that, but sometimes the Commission has voted differently than what
Staff anticipated. The final vote is still at the public hearing. The pre-application meeting gives
more voices to the applicant instead of just Staff.
Commissioner Russell suggested that some would be mandatory while some, maybe not visible
from the street, would not be mandatory. He continued that in Savannah Georgia, the process
is three months. The first month is design only, the second month is materials review, and the
third month is the public hearing. The applicants are not allowed to jump ahead in the
discussion by discussing materials in the first meeting, etc. Their three meetings are
mandatory.
Staff was asked to get a copy of Annapolis’s procedures.
Vice Chair Holder said that there were open questions on the timeline of meetings.
Chair Kelley asked Debra Weldon to come back to the commission with the City Attorney’s
thoughts on this, encouraged commissioners to put together some thoughts on the subject and
for Staff to provide some examples. Discussion will continue next month.
UPDATE: November 13, 2017
After the last meeting, the following list of topics to discuss was generated:
Mandatory or voluntary:
Infill
Page 10 of 14
Additions
Individually listed
Conservation easements from AHPP
Contributing or non-contributing
Visible from the street
Size of project:
Small
Large
Percentage of increase of square footage or footprint
Time and date of meeting:
At regular hearing
In the middle of the cycle
Location of meeting:
Board Room
Planning Conference Room
How many commissioners:
3
7
Composition of Committee:
Chair
Architect
QQA Representative
Property owner
Property owner resident
NRD representative
NRD representative
Citizens for open meetings
Language of meeting synopsis:
Non-binding
Becomes part of minutes
Disclaimers
Composition of Committee:
What not to discuss
Which design factors to discuss
Checklist for applicants
Submittals:
What is too little information
What is too much information
Format
Page 11 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: November 13, 2017
Staff recommends to get input from the City Attorney’s office before going too far in the
discussion of this item. Working with that guidance from the City Attorney’s office, Staff
recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and any
other so discovered.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 13, 2017
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated the following: The Commission can establish
a Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC cannot approve or deny any proj ects. The
committee meetings are subject FOIA. It must maintain documents and are subject to
disclosure. The meetings will not be public hearings; there will not be any public input even
though the public is allowed to attend. The DRC will supplement information to the Commission
based on the DRC recommendation. She mentioned the Planning Commission Subdivision
Committee which determines what is and in not in compliance with the requirements for
subdivisions based on law rather cut and dry. The HDC determines whether a project is
appropriate or not based on guidelines. The DRC will not have that checklist to review pint by
point. It will be difficult for the DRC committee members to give guidance without saying it the
DRC approves of the design.
Ms. Weldon continued to avoid polling of the commissioners; a clear statement in writing will
need to provide disclaimers. She read some proposed language: “With respect to a proposed
construction project in the Historic District, the final decision of each commission member as to
that projects appropriateness must be based upon review of a formal application and
consideration of public input concerning that application. Therefore the role of the DRC is to
explain and answer questions about the guidelines as they apply to the proposed project. Any
indication by DRC members stating that the design is appropriate should be considered subject
to change after the required public hearing before the full commission.” This would need to be
read at the beginning of the meetings. The objective would be to help the applicant’s
understand the guidelines and provide guidance on applying the guidelines to their project.
Chair Kelley spoke of reviewing very preliminary plans or presentation. They should not state
recommendations or if something should be approved or not. The DRC would be interpreting
the guidelines for them and this should not become design by committee. The applicants would
need to provide some basic design concepts for review. He continued that the DRC should
keep your comments general.
Chair Kelley also stated that they need a statement of intent or purpose of what the Design
Review DRC would do for them, maybe incorporate language from the QQA letter. Mr. Minyard
stated that it would be very important for the Commission to have that ‘Statement of Purpose”
as to what the DRC members will do, what the future applicant would provide, what the
limitations of the DRC will be, no statements of the DRC or individual members saying a project
is appropriate or not, and going over those points of the text that Ms. Weldon just read. This
should be provided to the future applicants in writing. The DRC needs to know when they
applicants were coming and they could be given to the Statement of Purpose before they come
to the meeting. The DRC can review the project by going point by point through the guidelines.
He reminded all that this is before they have an application before the commission.
Vice Chair Holder said it would be a good idea to go point by point on the agenda for discussion
tonight. There needs to be a procedure and an application for the pre-application meeting. They
Page 12 of 14
need drawings and something to review. Ms. Weldon said that the DRC may need separate
bylaws, policies and procedures, membership, terms, etc.
Mr. Minyard introduced Director Hendrix and gave her a brief overview of what the topic being
discussed. Director Hendrix stated that this sounded like a good idea.
Mandatory or voluntary:
Commissioner Pekar stated that he thought it should be voluntary on all applications. He thinks
that people will take advantage of the opportunity. Commissioner Russell asked what the
downside would be for mandatory for all applications.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked about if the applicants that were familiar with the
guidelines would be required to attend. Commissioner Russell stated that he thought there was
not any consistency in the approval or not of the applications. Smaller projects that applicants
are not aware that the commission would have problems approving would benefit if they
attended the meeting and reviewing the guidelines.
Commissioner Hodge prefers voluntary and it is on the applicant to decide if they want to come
to the meetings. He is concerned about delays.
Chair Kelley asked if the consensus was mandatory on infill and voluntary on the rest.
Commissioner Frederick expressed concern over delaying projects. Vice Chair Holder
suggested mandatory on infill and maybe mandatory on first time applicants. The asked Mr.
Minyard how many repeat applicants that the Commission had. Mr. Minyard responded that the
vast majority were first time applicants. Commissioner Russell said that was not a bad idea for
first time applicants to attend. There needs to be education for applicants to understand the
procedure and the guidelines.
Vice Chair Holder commented about giving input without giving recommendations.
Commissioner Frederick asked about if it was mandatory, when would the meetings happen. It
was stated that would be discussed letter.
There was a motion made to make the attendance mandatory for infill and voluntary for all other
projects. The motion passed 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Time and date of meeting:
There was a discussion on when the date of the hearing was to be held. Mr. Minyard stated that
if it was at the end of the regular hearing, there may be applicants wanting to file retroactively to
meet the past deadline. The calendar will need to be revised to show those dates. There was a
motion to have the meetings 2 weeks prior to the filing deadline. The motion passed 7 ayes and
0 noes.
Commissioner Hodge asked if you could attend multiple pre-application meetings as an
applicant. Vice Chair Holder stated that if it was pre-advertised meeting, why not.
Commissioner Pekar stated that the commission could address it if it became a problem.
Commissioner Hodge stated it could be set up under committee rules. Ms. Weldon stated that it
was an excellent question and the Commission could amend the bylaws if there was abuse of
the DRC.
Page 13 of 14
Location of meeting:
Vice Chair Holder commented that this room is very formal and the discussion should be around
a conference table. The Sister Cites Conference Room was discussed as well at the Planning
Department conference room. Commissioner Russell said that you should base the space on
the number of attendees.
How many commissioners:
There was a discussion on how many committee members were required to hold a meeting.
Chair Kelley asked how many commissioners would be present. It was noted that four
commissioners is a quorum and no votes can be taken on any item. There was discussion on
having two stated positions and rotating or alternate positions on the third. Ms. Weldon stated
that there needs to be people appointed to the committee, not a rotating membership.
Consistency of the advice was discussed if there were rotating commissioners. Discussion
continued on if the final vote was different than the analysis given by the DRC.
Vice Chair Holder asked if there would be a staff report at the meeting and how they were to talk
about surrounding context. Commissioner Russell spoke about how to discuss the items and
Commissioner Hodge raised the point of how far they can go in the discussions.
Commissioner Jones initiated a discussion about materials. Mr. Minyard said it was listed in wall
areas and facades. Materials would be discussed in those design factors. Mr. Minyard clarified
the vinyl siding policy which is to not put vinyl siding over wood siding on historic structures; it
could be approved on new construction. Commissioner Jones stressed that they needed to look
at all details and materials.
It was discussed with new chairs and vice chairs being elected, that every January the
membership my change especially if the architect or the QQA representative was the Chair.
Commissioner Frederick spoke of consistency of the advice from month to month if the
members were rotating and different member’s attitude and experience. Vice Chair Holder
asked if there will be a staff report and what will the DRC be provided. Discussion was held
about what they would need to provide. Commissioner Hodge asked how far the conversation
could go on the guidelines. Mr. Minyard suggested that the discussion be limited to how yo u
project fits with the guidelines. The design factors were listed in the guidelines in a particular
order. Asking questions of the applicant and discussing the definitions of the design factors
should be beneficial. The DRC may take the tack of saying phrases like ”You may want to look
at the roof shape more before you file” or ”You may want to look at your window placement
more before you file”. The commissioners will not want to say something is great and state they
will vote for that.
There was a motion made to have three commissioners on the DRC with the Architect and the
QQA positions being required. Mr. Minyard stated that he believes that the HDC bylaws state
the Chair appoints members to the committees. After the election of officers, the Chair will
analyze if there is any overlap between the Chair and the Architect or QQA positions. The
motion with the Chair appointing members every year passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Mr. Minyard stated that he and Ms. Weldon would analyze what they have now and will present
recommendations at the next public hearing.
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier in the agenda meeting. Mr. Minyard
stated that it was a lot of roofing permits at Rock and 6th. Commissioner Jones asked if they
were different owners, Mr. Minyard stated the one owner DD &F had permits to reroof and
repair the roof on multiple buildings. Chair Kelley asked what type of roof they are putting on.
Mr. Minyard stated he thought it was a three tab black shingle.
Citizen Communication
Denise Ennett, DNA president and resident of Pettaway, asked questions of staff about 14th
and Commerce which has a permit issued for restoration of the house as a single family house.
She also asked about 1414 Park Lane which was burned and Mr. Minyard has been in contact
with a member of that organization and spoke of tax credit and rehab. The Housing Department
did not file a demolition application on it yet.
Mr. Minyard added that he had been in contact with a person that is interested in purchasing
1419 and 1420 Commerce Street.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:47 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
d
Secretary /Staff 0
/Z-/I-/7
Date
� l �!,-0
Date
Page 14 of 14