Loading...
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