Loading...
HDC_01 14 2019DEPARTMENT 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, January 14, 2019 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Dale Pekar Amber Jones Robert Hodge Frances McSwain Members Absent: Lauren Frederick City Attorney: Shawn Overton Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Jaime Taylor Randy Mourning Ray Wittenberg Jimmy Moses Page Wilson Denise Ennett Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the November 5, 2018 and the December 10, 2018 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). 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. Page 1 of 16 Page 2 of 16 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. One. DATE: January 14, 2019 APPLICANT: James Moses, Newmark Moses Tucker Partners ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue FILE NUMBER: HDC18-021 COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: “Some Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick detailing.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. This item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue east of the apartment building. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 12, 2016, a COA to allow the existing fence to remain was denied by the HDC. There has been no change to the fence since that application. On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construction of a duplex at 507 Rock Street that included a three foot tall fence in that location. Location of Project Page 3 of 16 Capitol Avenue fence view from east Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines on pages 58-60 state that fences on street frontage and front yard should be 36” tall. This fence in question has street frontage along Capitol Ave. The staff report of May 11, 2015 for the original application stated that the fence along Capitol Avenue was to be thirty-six inches tall. Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application, stated that the fence on Capitol Avenue was planned to be thirty-six inches tall. The parking lot adjacent to the fence was to be expanded and reconfigured with automatic gates to secure the parking lot. However, the project plans changed. The duplex was not built and a swimming pool was built in its place. The parking lot was not expanded either. In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is labeled “6’ Fence”. Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled “3’ Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence depicted in blue in the photos. It is immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building. The six foot fence does not provide any additional security to the parked cars, to the air conditioning units located to the east of the building, or to the property in general. The cars are parked in a non-secured parking lot that has the alley functioning as the aisle. There is not a fence on the south side of the property to separate this rear yard from the neighboring property or the alley. It is possible to enter the area without going through any gates Aerial view of parking lot Page 4 of 16 or over any fence. The fence was approved at the thirty-six inch height but was installed at the six foot height. Quote from minutes of December 12, 2016 “Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an oversight on their part that the fence was installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to allow them to keep the fence. “Chair BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had been installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required. Jimmy Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that it is not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but that the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there was a variety of fences and does not believe that this fence is out of character.” Trapnall Hall is owned by the State of Arkansas and is not subject to the review of the Historic District Commission. A courtesy presentation was made to the HDC on February 11, 2013 concerning the installation of the fence at Trapnall Hall’s parking lot directly across the alley from this application. In summary, this fence was installed contrary to the approved COA. This fence does not provide any physical deterrent from foot traffic entering the site. This fence does not provide any additional security to the cars parked off the alley. This fence does not totally enclose the parking. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land that would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell View of 401 E Capitol from the southeast showing no fence on south property line. View of two fences from the east showing height difference. Page 5 of 16 and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2019 Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item. He did state that he received one call about the fence of a neutral nature. Jimmy Moses, the applicant, said that they had completed a renovation of the Magnolia Courts in 2015. In a previous meeting, they admitted to the HDC that the fence was installed wrongly. It was the intention to upgrade the property. He said that he made a $5,000 mistake on the six foot tall fence. The building is a three story thirty six foot tall apartment building. He listed twelve properties that have six foot decorative fences. (Editor’s note: Some of the fences are not under the jurisdiction of the HDC, some have a mix of three and six foot fences, some of the six foot tall fences are on the front, side, or rear property lines. They do not all have uniform six foot fences along the front property lines.) Mr. Moses continued that he thought that a six foot fence is more appropriate and that he has not received a complaint on the fence. He said he thought the guidelines were confusing. He quoted on page 60 that the fence should be appropriate to the style of the building. He noted that the guidelines state should versus shall. He is asking the commission to reconsider the fence. There was no public comment on the fence at this time. Chair Ted Holder asked which were six feet tall and which were not. Mr. Moses stated that some of the six foot tall were on the front of the property and some are not. Commissioner Amber Jones said the fence height to the building height is not relevant. Fence heights are in relation to the people height, for example, how tall of a fence would a skyscraper have? Mr. Moses responded that it was unfair to hold him to a three foot standard. Commissioner Jones stated that when an applicant does something contrary to what was approved, it sends a wrong message to others in the district. She stated that since she was not on the commission when these others were approved, it is hard for her to judge what was germane to the applications at that time. Chair Holder stated that the applicant applied for a three foot fence, that was approved, and then he built a six foot fence. Mr. Moses asked what he was supposed to do with the fence. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell referred to page 58 of the guidelines that show that in the side yard on a corner lot. He continued that Trapnall Hall has a very large setback and again referred to graphic. This is not an issue of allowing it, but what your company originally submitted. Mr. Moses doubted that a three foot fence was what was submitted. Vice Chair Russell stated the he did and the review of fencing is on a case by case basis. Mr. Moses said that the guidelines were guidelines and all styles were appropriate. Vice Chair Russell stated that each is reviewed based on merit. Chair Holder stated that it was a big deal, based on what was requested and what was approved. He does not agree that they treat others differently. Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Robert Hodge stated that it was contrary to the entire system to have people ask for forgiveness after the fact. Commissioner Frances McSwain asked if there was any room for mitigation on the fence. Vice Chair Russell asked her to explain and she did. Mr. Moses requested to be forgiven and not to have to take it down. He believes that this action is punitive. Shawn Overton, City Attorney’s office, stated that he has heard terms that cause him some concern; arbitrary and capricious, and punitive. The HDC do not set precedence. He stated that equal protection under the law is something that should be addressed. Mr. Moses asked that the Commission tell him what to do. Page Wilson, 324 E 15th, suggested that there could be mitigation on the fence to modify the fence by cutting it down to the desired height and welding it back together. Commissioner Hodge agreed stating that the top could be cut off the fence. Vice Chair Russell said he did not care how it was done, only that it needed to get to thirty six inches tall. Chair Holder stated that as a governmental body, when COAs are granted or denied, we can’t disregard when something is installed that is contrary to the approved COA. Commissioner McSwain asked will Mr. Moses cut it off. Mr. Moses replied that he will comply with the commission’s decisions. Chair Holder said that we have to treat each case the same way. Commissioner Jones stated that was an unfortunate situation. Commissioner Hodge said that he did not like to discourage investment. Mr. Moses said that to cut up or replace the fence was not the end of the earth. What is bad is that our goals are similar. The fence was not constructed with malice and forethought. He reiterated that the guidelines state should verses shall. There was a motion to approve the fence as existing at the six foot height. Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye (McSwain), 5 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Chair Holder stated he had already expressed his opinion. Commissioner Dale Pekar said with the fence location on Capitol Avenue does not fit the immediate area and does not fit the rhythm. Commissioner Jones, Hodge and Vice Chair Russell stated that a three foot fence was approved and that is what should have been put in. Commissioner Hodge added it does not set a good precedence to allow forgiveness on those sorts of items. Commissioner McSwain looked at this as a new application with the diversity of the fences in the area. Page 7 of 16 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. Five. DATE: January 14, 2019 APPLICANT: Randy Mourning, Angel Properties LLC ADDRESS: 1002 Cumberland, 215-221 E 10th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-034 COA REQUEST: Fencing PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1002 Cumberland, 215-221 E 10th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lots 11 and 12, Block 24, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This site has three buildings on it. From the west, they are as follows: 215 - 217 E 10th street is a multifamily building that was built in c 1905. The 2006 survey form states: “This apartment building is built as a standard early twentieth century commercial building with a craftsman style porch.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. Location of Project 219 – 221 E 10th Street, the Brook Apartments, is a multifamily building was built c 1890. The 2006 survey form states: “An unadorned Italianate/Second Empire structure with a flat roof, shallow arched windows and extensive brick detailing. Additions have been added to the back of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The 36’ metal fence is shown in the photos of the 2007 survey. 1000-1002 Cumberland Street, the Caroline Row Apartments, is a multifamily building was built c 1890. The 2006 survey form states: “An unadorned Italianate/Second Empire structure with a flat roof, shallow arched windows and elaborate brick detailing. Stairs have been added to the back of the structure.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The 36’ metal fence is shown in the photos of the 2007 survey. Page 8 of 16 This application is for Fencing. This will replace missing gates along the street in the 36” fence as well as installing additional sections of fence and additional gates on both 10th and Cumberland Streets. The parking lot to the south will be enclosed with a combination of 6’ wood and 6’ metal fence with drive gates. A letter of support from AHPP is included near the end of the staff report. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On March 1, 1995, a COA was approved and issued to Angel Properties to reinstall the original fence. Existing fence from the corner of Cumberland and 10th Streets looking south Existing fence along 10th Street looking east PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant was able to find the original manufacturer for the fence and has submitted the matching gates as replacement gates. They also were able to locate missing filigree on the gate posts to match. The 3’ fence to match the existing historic fence will be a three-rail fence with 3/8” square pickets and spears 36” in height to match existing with gate posts with #3 Castle Tops with steel filigree inserts and new gates shown as “Traditional” from submittal from Stewart Iron Works Company. See graphic later in this report. On the 10th Street side, the proposal is to add a section of 36” tall metal fence to match and a double walk gate between 215-217 E 10th and 219-221 E 10th Street. A new gate will be installed at 219 E 10th Street and a section of fence to the Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 9 of 16 west. A new double gate will be installed at 221 E 10th Street. A new single walk gate will be installed at 1002 Cumberland on the northwest entrance. On the Cumberland Street side, the proposal is to add a metal man gate at 1002 Cumberland on the east entrance. The steps off of the porch will be moved from the east side of the porch to the north side of the porch. A new concrete walk will be installed from the porch to the Cumberland Street sidewalk and the gate will be installed at that point. New 36” fencing will be installed along with the existing to the corner of the building north of the exterior stair. At that point, the 6’ fence will start. Below on page 9 is a graphic of the fence. The decorative post in the graphic below on the left will be at the gates, while the plain post will be installed at the building edges. Matching gate shown between existing fence for fencing and gates on 10th Street and Cumberland Street. Post on left at gates and post on right to be installed at edge of buildings. A combination of a 6’ tall metal fence and a 6’ wood fence will enclose the parking lot that is to the south of the three buildings. The metal fence will intersect the corner of 1002 Cumberland north of the exterior stair and extend toward the street. It will then be parallel to Cumberland Street with both a drive gate and a man gate and then proceed south to the property line. This property is zoned R-4A which specifies a 5’ setback from Cumberland Street for any fence or gate over 48”. That distance is approximately nine feet from the back of the sidewalk. The proposed plan will need to be adjusted for that setback or the applicant can file for a Board of Adjustment variance on the location. The Board of Adjustment will be a separate public hearing with its own requirements. The 6’ metal fence will then follow the south line of the parking lot parallel to the building at 1008 Cumberland. At the corner of the house (not including the porch), the 6’ metal fence will be terminated and a 6’ tall wood privacy fence will be installed. That wood fence will continue all the way to the Existing Fence at the Clayton Apts. Page 10 of 16 alley along that south property line. At the alley, the 6’ metal fence will start again and proceed north to the rear corner 215 E 10th Street building and also include a drive gate. The 6’ metal fence will be to match The Clayton Apartments with the exception of having 3 rails to better match the existing historic 3 rail fencing. Two slide operators with pinch v rollers at each end of the parking will be installed. The wood fence will be a 6’ tall pine fence with dog ear top. The existing private dumpster located at the southwest corner of the parking lot will need to be screened to conform to code requirements. The screening required is an opaque fence at least 24” above the top of the dumpster not to exceed 8 feet in height (Sec. 36-523 and Sec. 15-95). The proposal is to enclose the dumpster in an 11’ by 10’ area with gates on the north side of the enclosure. The dumpster is pictured in the photo below. Staff believes that this application is generally appropriate. The 6’ fence and vehicle gate will need to be moved 5’ off the property line to conform to zoning standards or the applicant will need to file for a variance with the Board of Adjustment. A question to ask is if the introduction of another type of fencing, the wood fence on the south property line, is as appropriate as it would be if the applicant continued the metal fence for the entirety of the fence. The pro-rated cost of replacement of the wood fence would offset the longer life span of the metal fence. The use on the other side of the wood fence is the office at 1008 S Cumberland in the two story building and the associated parking behind the building. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two comments regarding this application. One was regarding whether the dumpster needed to be screened and one of a neutral nature. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this item due to improper notice being made to the property owners in the area of influence. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 Photo of parking lot from Cumberland Street Photo of parking lot from alley camera facing southeast Page 11 of 16 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). UPDATE: January 14, 2018 Changes were made to the application since the original submittal. The final plan for the fencing is included later in this report. Changes have been incorporated into the text above. The dumpster will be enclosed with a wood fence per the City’s code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1.Obtaining a building permit. 2.Installation of eastern fence 5’ off property line unless variance is granted by Board of Adjustment. 3.Submittal of final scaled drawing showing tree locations to reflect new fence location along Cumberland Street, mechanical gate openers, and dumpster screening. COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2019 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He commented that he had one neutral comment on the screening of the dumpster and another neutral comment on the fencing. Randy Mourning, a partner in Angel properties, said that tenants had requested the fence for a more secure property. 8 of 11 of his renters are female. He thought it would be a benefit for the neighborhood. The existing three foot fence is from the late 1800s and the foundry is still in business. They will be able to complete the fence with original parts. He stated that the owner of 1008 Cumberland is in support of the fence. Vice Chair Russell asked about the five foot setback from Cumberland Street. He asked if it the six foot tall gate could be moved further back to the corner of the building to be in compliance with the guidelines. Mr. Mourning said that he would lose parking spaces if he moves the fence to the west. He would be willing to move it if the parking lot is adequate. Mr. Minyard stated that he believed that the five feet setback would be between the trees. Mr. Minyard believed that he would lose a parking space if he moved the fence back to the corner of the building. Mr. Mourning asked to keep the fence in the location as submitted. Chair Holder wanted to clarify that the iron fence is along 10th and Cumberland and the fence along south property line is wood. Mr. Mourning said the wood is more cost effective. He did say that it has a shorter life span but is more concerned with hiding headlights. There was a discussion of whether the item was required to go to the Board of Adjustment. Vice Chair Russell referred to page 59 of the Guidelines to not impede views of the neighboring properties. He would like to defer the item to know exactly where the fence will be put. Shawn Overton, City Attorney’s office, offered an opportunity to defer for more information and stated that it can be helpful for a deferral. Mr. Mourning said that he would like to start construction of the 36’ fence section at this time and possibly defer the taller sections. Page 12 of 16 Commissioner McSwain asked for a clarification on the deferrals and noticing process. Vice Chair Russell believed that there were two options: 1) Amend the application to remove the rear fencing and resubmit at a later date for it and 2) Accept the Commissions deferral for all of the application and submit a scaled plan. The city would pay for the notices. Mr. Mourning stated that the neighbor at 1008 Cumberland is in support of the fence on the south side of the property. Commissioner Dale Pekar asked if there was an option 3. Mr. Overton was comfortable with waiving application fees and the city providing notice. Mr. Minyard reiterated the bylaws on when the city provides notices. He continued that in the past splitting votes on one application was not encouraged but not prohibited. Commissioner Robert Hodge noted that he could see where it would be wise to separate the two. Commissioner McSwain said that we have an applicant that went way beyond on the fence. Chair Holder stated that this application was for different types of fences and the Commission wants to get more information for the next meeting. Mr. Mourning wants to provide fences for the parking area. He continued that he may be able to provide the required parking and move the fence back 5’ and work it out in the field with city staff. There was a discussion on the differences with the Guidelines and the city setback ordinances. Mr. Minyard provided the commission and the applicant with a survey of the property that clarified the distances from the sidewalk to the property line and the distance to the corner of the building. Vice Chair Russell stated he was willing to accept the 5’ setback on the fence. Mr. Mourning amended his application to move his six foot tall fence along Cumberland to meet conform to the five foot setback. There was no public comment on the item. Commissioner McSwain made a motion to approve with the 6’ tall section being placed 5’ off the property line along Cumberland Street with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Amber Jones Seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Frederick). Page 13 of 16 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. Six. DATE: December 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Jamie Taylor, Bluebird Realty ADDRESS: 409 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC18-035 COA REQUEST: Sign PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 409 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “East 50’ of Lot 1 and the North 35’ of the East 50’ of Lot 2, Block 151, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c 1907. The 2006 survey form states: “A National Register Property similar to adjacent Thompson designed home. Large ionic (paried) columns and decorative dormer with Palladian window provides decoration.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Sign to be mounted on the same apparatus as the previous sign. It is the same size and shape. Location of Project PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 25, 2018, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for the replacement of concrete steps. On October 3, 2017, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a new roof. On January 20, 2016, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for a new sign. On June 23, 2014, a COC was approved and issued to DDF for a repair work due to storm. On March 4, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to DDF for fence enclosures around air conditioning units. Page 14 of 16 Proposed sign Previous approved sign PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is to replace the existing sign for DDF and replace with another sign of the same size, shape, and materials for the new tenant, Bluebird Realty. The sign is a 1/8’ aluminum plate cut to shape. The address oval is 3/16” aluminum plate bonded to the background. The text, background color and logo are printed on high performance vinyl and mounted to the plates. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 4.Obtaining a sign permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 10, 2018 The notices for this item were incomplete. Staff recommended deferral of the item. A motion was made to defer this item to the January 14, 2019 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Robert Hodge. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 15 of 16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1.Obtaining a sign permit. COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2019 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. Jamie Taylor, the applicant, stated that they needed to change the sign for their company. They currently rent the location. She stated that the hearing had been exciting to watch. There was no public comment. Commissioner Jones asked if this sign was already installed. Mr. Minyard stated that according to real estate rules, you cannot be in business without a sign installed. But the HDC rules say you must get your sign approved before it is installed. There is a bit of a catch 22 here. The sign is installed, and enforcement has been suspended since they filed their application. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve as installed. Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Frederick). Page 16 of 16 Other Matters Committee Appointments Chair Ted Holder presented his slate of candidates to the committees. To the Design Review committee; Chair Ted Holder, Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell, Amber Jones, and Robert Hodge as the alternate. To the Preservation Plan Implementation Committee: Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell, Frances McSwain, Lauren Frederick, and Dale Pekar. Commissioner Hodge made a motion to accept the slate and Commissioner McSwain seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and one absent (Frederick). Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:40 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary /Staff Date