Loading...
HDC_02 10 2020Page 1 of 18 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 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 10, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Lauren Frederick Amber Jones Lindsey Boerner Members Absent: Robert Hodge Open Position City Attorney: Shawn Overton Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Frances “Missy” McSwain Mitchell Harrelson Brooke Greenberg Ibrahim Elsaidi Murad Elsaidi Jimmy Moses Page Wilson Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the December 9, 2019 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Lauren Frederick seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. It was clarified by Staff that edits made by Chair Jeremiah Russell had been incorporated into the submitted copy. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the January 13, 2020 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Lauren Frederick seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. 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 2 of 18 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: February 10, 2020 APPLICANT: Ibrahim Elsaidi ADDRESS: 314 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-003 COA REQUEST: Awning Replacement PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 314 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “W est 26' of Lot 7 & W est 26' of the South 10' of Lot 8 block 40 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This one story commercial building was built in the 1960’s. The 2006 survey form states: “This standard Commercial 20th Century building has aluminum framed windows and doors at front with side walls and back with no openings. The mansard roof attached to front wall provides protection over sidewalk. The first occupant was Joseph Pritchard Grocery and remained there through the 1970’s.” It is not considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. The awning was removed without a COA and had started to be replaced in a manner that cannot be administratively approved as maintenance. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 6, 2019, a COA was approved and issued to Ibrahim Saidi to replace glass in the windows and doors due to fire damage. On March 11, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to Samirah Alwazir for signage. Location of Project Page 3 of 18 South façade January 2013. South façade October 2019 Looking west December 2019. Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to replace the damaged awning with the one that is under construction. The intent is to use the shingles as has been started and paint the shingles red. On page 24 of the Guidelines under Individual Building elements – Commercial and Mixed Use in the Rehabilitation Section, it states “Awnings may be added to commercial buildings if physical evidence exists. Awnings should be of a traditional design, materials, and placement. Canvas, acrylic, or vinyl-coated materials are preferable to fixed metal or wood awnings.” Based on the method of brick counting, the original awning was 36” deep. It was grey in color, and was painted red after Mr. Elsaidi opened the Downtown Deli and Grocery in 2013. Staff received a phone call from a neighboring property owner in late October 2019. Staff made contact with the owner on November 4, 2019. The owner stated that the awning was damaged in the fire and had to be removed. Staff explained that if the awning was replaced exactly the way it was before, it could be administratively approved with a Certificate of Compliance. Staff worked with the applicant to locate metal shingles that are made by the same manufacturer that are Page 4 of 18 similar. The exact shingles that were on the building are not manufactured anymore. The closest in appearance to those metal shingles are $441.00 per square with $2,000 shipping. After the awing was removed, it appears that the building was originally a stucco building and the brick veneer was added later when the awning was added. The stucco finish is still on east side. It is uncertain when the awning was added to the building. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the December 20, 2019 Pre-application meeting. The comments from the commissioners are summarized as follows: SITING No comments. HEIGHT No comments. PROPORTION Should be basically the same as the old awning. What goes back should be as close as possible to the old awning. Replace roof in similar proportion to original based on pictorial evidence. RHYTHM No comments. SCALE No comments. MASSING No comments. ENTRANCE AREA Maintain openings in original configuration based on pictorial evidence. WALL AREAS Windows, doors, etc. should be in the same place. Similar comments as above. ROOF AREA Do not put shingles. Should be a complete projects, soffit material and water tight. Photo taken December 2019. Photo taken October 2019. Page 5 of 18 FAÇADE Probably should be the same. Should be put back as close as possible like it was before fire. DETAILING Not much to see. Provide detailing for awning construction. List of materials to be used and description of waterproofing method. This building is non-contributing building to the district. Staff does not know of any photos of the building prior to the addition of the awning or adding brick to the exterior on three sides. Any attempt to make the building look more contributing would be conjecture without pictorial evidence as to what the façade originally looked like. The addition of asphalt shingles is removable and would not make it harder to make it contributing. The Historic District Commission does not review colors of shingles. Painting the shingles add a degree of maintenance that could be avoided by installing the desired color of asphalt shingle in the first place. Painting of the shingles may void the warranty of that manufacturer and may damage the shingles. The applicant needs to research if the painting of the shingles will damage them, void the warranty, or both. Whether the asphalt shingles are painted or not, there needs to be a uniform color to the asphalt shingles. The result of the Pre-Application meeting was for the applicant to put the awning back the way it was prior to the fire. Staff does not know off any metal shingles in the district on mansards. Across the country, these mansard awnings were covered in all of all types of materials, asphalt shingles, wood shingles, metal shingles, etc. This district is not known for Mid-Century slipcovers or modifications to commercial buildings which are high design and have attained historic status on their own. Would the replacement of the awning with materials other than the metal shingles impact the contributing structures in the district or in the area of influence? It is staff’s opinion that since this is not a contributing structure, this is not an architecturally significant building, and this is the only commercial mansard roof in the district, it will not impact the district. There are two buildings on 10th Street that are apartment buildings that have asphalt shingles on a mansard roof. Those appear on the aerial photos after 1970. Those are also considered not-contributing. This application does not cover any future signage on the building or grounds. Those would be covered in a future COA application. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were one comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Submit to all inspections via the Building permit process before occupying building. COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item. He stated that there were two emails and one phone call concerning the item. Murad Elsaidi, the son of the applicant, stated that the building was non-contributing and spoke of the expense for the replacement metal shingles. They are asking to paint the asphalt shingles. They are looking to use, sell, or lease the building. Page 6 of 18 Jimmy Moses, property owner in the district, spoke of his development in the district including the Legion Row Apartments that are next door. He said that he was delighted that they were going to fix the fire damage but was concerned about the painted shingles. He did not believe that the mansard roof was original. He said the building was noncontributing and that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. He asked if the Commission would consider allowing the applicant to remove the mansard roof and put the commercial storefront back. He gave the Commission and staff a photo of a building on 7th Street where a commercial storefront had been installed. He would support a redo of the building with a traditionally designed storefront. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked if the applicant had looked at a different design. Mr. Ibrahim Elsaidi stated they were trying to finish up and make it like it looked in 2013, but the expense of the original shingles was prohibitive. Chair Jeremiah Russell asked the applicants if they would consider not painting the shingles. He was concerned about the maintenance, appearance and warranty of the painted shingles. Mr. Ibrahim Elsaidi said that they would not paint them if the Commission didn’t want them to. Commissioner Lindsey Boerner commented on the photo from 2019 and wanted clarification on the two colors of shingles. She asked if they would replace the painted shingles with unpainted ones? Mr. Murad Elsaidi said that the metal shingles were blue before he painted them red. Some of the brown asphalt shingles have been painted. He thought it was better to paint all of them the same color. If the Commission wants them to be painted differently, he would do that. Mr. Murad Elsaidi said that they would do what the Commission wanted them to do with the asphalt shingles as long as they did not have to go back and use the expensive metal shingles. Commissioner Frederick asked if the applicants had started the process without permission and if the Commission would have allowed him to do that if the first place. Mr. Minyard explained that if they had come back with the recommended metal shingles, it would have been signed off administratively as maintenance. Since they started with the asphalt shingles without permission, they are before the Commission to ask for approval of the change in materials from metal to asphalt on the shingles. Mr. Minyard stated that the Commission does not review color, so the color of the asphalt shingles is not the issue. Chair Russell stated that the building has some Art Deco influences on the porch and maybe originally had some other Art Deco elements based on the photos of the steps. He continued that he would rather not have an awning on the building. The applicants did not provide details on how the awning was going to be constructed as was stipulated in the Pre-Application meeting. Commissioner Frederick stated that she would not have approved the asphalt shingles on this building if the applicants had approached the Commission before construction started. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he thought the building was older than it appears. Commissioner Frederick stated that the commission has had other people restore their buildings to their previous conditions and that these applicants should be required to do so also. Mr. Moses said that he has appeared before the HDC for renovations concerning a fence at 401 E Capitol. They removed the fence that was installed improperly and put in the approved fence. Page 7 of 18 He continued that the applicants had an opportunity to increase their property value with a new design on the front. He would support getting rid of the mansard roof. Vice Chair Holder stated that the Commission does not know what the storefront looked like before the mansard roof was installed. The application as filed is for the asphalt shingles on the mansard roof and that is what they can vote to approve or not. There was a discussion on whether mansard roofs were located in the district. The apartments at 13th and Scott were mentioned as well as apartments at 10th and McMath. Commissioner Frederick said that the vote could be to deny the application and asked why this application any different. Commissioner Amber Jones responded that it was not about the looks, but about the rules. The applicants left the podium and had a discussion in the rear of the room with Mr. Moses and Page Wilson. Murad Elsaidi amended the application to remove the awning and cover the top of the building that needed to be repaired. Mr. Minyard stated that the proposed amendment was enough of a deviation from the application to would require drawings and specifications to illustrate what was being reviewed. That would require a deferral and the applicants would have to notify all of the neighbors again. Chair Russell said that there was enough evidence in that one photo to show what the building originally looked like. He said that if one was to remove the brick above the awning, repair the stucco, and repair the storefront, it would be close to to what the building was originally. Vice Chair Holder asked what the cost of that would be. Chair Russell said it would be $3,000 or so to finish it like he described and would be comparative to what the original cost was. Commissioner Frederick asked if the applicant had insurance. He responded that he did. Shawn Overton, of the City Attorney’s office stated that he was getting uncomfortable with the proceedings because the applicant seemed to be under duress. The applicant needed to make the decision to defer or continue. Ibrahim Elsaidi responded that that if they can finish it, they would. If not, they would take the awning down. There was a discussion between the applicants at the podium. Mr. Minyard explained the process of deferring the application with a material change, having the application denied and the time frame of 12 months to resubmit it without a material change, and the implications of withdrawing the application. If the applicants chose to withdraw their applicant and resubmit it, they would have to attend the Pre-Application meetings as they did before. Murad Elsaidi asked to amend the application back to the way it was originally filed. Chair Russell made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Staff recommendations. Commissioner Boerner seconded. The motion failed with a vote of 1 yes (Jones), 4 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. Pursuant to the By-Laws each commissioner explained why he/she voted for or against the application. Commissioner Jones stated that she voted for the application because of it was similar to others in the district. Page 8 of 18 Chair Russell voted against the item because the mansard roof could be argued to be in conformance with the guidelines, but it was not in the best interest of this project within the district. The applicant should explore other options. Vice Chair Holder agreed with Chair Russell. Commissioner Frederick thought that the awning should match others in the area and wished that the applicant had come in before construction started. Vice Chair Holder agreed with Commissioner Frederick. Mr. Minyard recommend that the applicant come visit him in his office for the next steps. Page 9 of 18 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. Two. DATE: February 10, 2020 APPLICANT: Debra Wolfe ADDRESS: 617 Cumberland Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-004 COA REQUEST: fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 617 Cumberland Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1 MacArthur Place Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built in 2005. It is considered a "Non-contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. Fencing was installed without a COA by the HDC and without a building permit. The proposed fence is to the rear of the property on both sides of the house. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 11, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to Alice Lightle for front yard fencing. On July 14, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to Tina Boyd for construction of a single family house. Location of Project Page 10 of 18 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The fence was installed to expand the dog run area. On the north side of the house, an area of 3.5’ x 50’ was enclosed along the garage and courtyard areas. This portion is visible from the street. On the south side of the house, a fence was already in place to enclose the courtyard area. The additional fence, 27.29’, was added beside the garage. On page 60 of the Guidelines, it states that “Fences in the rear yard and those on the side property lines without street frontage may be 72” tall. The privacy fence should be setback from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure…” The fence appears to be six feet tall. It is setback more than halfway from the front of the house on both sides. The fence is constructed in a style that should reflect the style of the house. This fence complies with the guidelines for fences in the rear yard. North side of house photo from applicant South side of house photo from applicant North side of house from sidewalk Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 11 of 18 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one phone call regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that the mailings to the area of influence had been done incorrectly. The Staff recommendation was to defer the application to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The applicant is aware that the notices were done incorrectly and will resend them for the March meeting. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to waive the bylaws requiring a five day written notice to defer the item. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. Sketch provided by applicant. (Cumberland Street is to the right, north is down on this sketch.) Page 12 of 18 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 D. DATE: February 10, 2020 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide REQUEST: Revise By-laws The HDC By-Laws do not address ex-parte communication. As these communications are a reoccurring issue the HDC has decided it would be in the Commission’s best interests to amend its By-Laws to include a provision on ex-parte communication. Such an amendment would take the form of adding an Article IX. The HDC has unfettered discretion to draft this By-Law provision However; there are possible amendments which highlight the key issues. (The differences between the versions are highlighted.) The Commission is by no means limited to these possibilities. Commissioners are welcome to make other suggestions. Once a final decision is made, the Commission will amend the By-Laws pursuant to Article VII. Amendments. If there are any other sections of the By-Laws which need to be amended, it is advised that the Commission address all By-Law amendments at the same time. The current set of by-laws were adopted in 2011. Article IX. Ex-Parte Communications ISSUE 1: Who cannot communicate with a Commissioner ex-parte? VERSION 1.1: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between a person who is not a member of the Historic District Commission or affiliated with the Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex-parte communications are prohibited. VERSION 1.2: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between an applicant or any person who is professionally affiliated with the applicant regarding a matter before the Historic District Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex- parte communications are prohibited. Analysis of Issue 1: Page 13 of 18 Version 1.1 prohibits all citizens from talking to a Commissioner where version 1.2 only prohibits the applicant and his/her team. Staff is of the opinion that version 2 better addresses the problems Commissioners face concerning ex-parte communications. Version 1.1 is the stricter and would qualify any and all communication outside of HDC meetings as ex-parte. ISSUE 2: What happens in the event of an ex-parte communication? VERSION 2.1: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting and recuse himself from all Commission discussions and votes concerning the matter which was the subject of the ex-parte communication. VERSION 2.2: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting. Analysis of Issue 2: Version 2.1 states that when an ex-parte communication happens, that Commissioner must disclose the information to the HDC and recuse. Version 2.2mandates disclosure but the Commissioner retains his/her voting privileges. Issue 2 is tied to the results of Issue 1. The following are the four scenarios of the possible outcomes of the proposed amendments. 1.1 and 2.1 All citizens included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation and recuse from a vote on the matter. This could result in hampering the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.2 and 2.1 Only the applicant and his/her team included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation and recuse. This would potentially have a lesser result than the above-mentioned scenario but could still hamper the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.1 and 2.2 All citizens are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but can vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. This could include unsolicited emails which were not replied to and thwarted conversations about an item (see below). Page 14 of 18 1.2 and 2.2 Only the applicant and his/her team are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but could still vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. At the beginning of each item at the public hearings, Staff (Planning or City Attorney’s office) will have to ask if there are any Commissioners who have had ex-parte communications and details or evidence of such (email, phone, in person conversation, if the Commissioner engaged in dialogue, etc.). There should be an opportunity for discussion and, when needed, a vote that the Commissioner will recuse or remain and vote based on each instance. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION A matter for consideration is the extent to which the Commissioner participated in the ex-parte communication. Email in particular poses a problem. Commissioners cannot avoid unsolicited emails. However, Commissioners do not have to reply to emails. (All emails which are received by Commissioners on the item should be forwarded to Staff to include in the record.) Commissioners also cannot stop a person approaching them at the grocery store, street, etc., to discuss an item. What Commissioners can do is to thwart the conversation by stating “If I have a conversation with you about the project, I may have to recuse on the item. Please send the Staff any concerns you have on the project. The Staff can discuss the project with you.” It is advisable for the Commissioner who has had such a conversation to email Staff with a synopsis immediately after the conversation when the discussion is still fresh in his/her memory. This email should be entered as part of the record. COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019 This item was deferred to the January 13, 2020 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Robert Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions. STAFF UPDATE: January 13, 2020 After the hearing of December 9, 2020, the following additions to the item are proposed. There is a proposal to strike this section since it is not a policy that Staff follows. Article V. Conduct of Business D. Special Rules of Procedure [p. 6] 6. The Secretary of the Commission shall affix an identification tag which includes the case number and an exhibit designation in sequence beginning with “A” to each item, visual or written, formally presented to the Commission at the time of the material’s introduction to the Commission, which is designated by the applicant or other parties testifying before the Commission as a submission to form part of the record upon which the Commission makes its decision. Page 15 of 18 This section would change the requirement to waive the by-laws when an applicant wants to defer at the meeting. The new text would allow them to ask any time before the hearing or at the hearing. E. General Policies [p. 7] 8. Deferrals. An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred only as follows: a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant (1) The applicant's request for deferral must may be submitted in writing prior to the date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing. (2) The request for deferral must state the reason that a deferral is needed and must specify the proposed length of the deferral. (3) The applicant's request for deferral must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission members present. (4) No single request for deferral by an applicant shall be granted for more than one hundred (100) days, except by unanimous vote of all Commission members present. (5) In no case shall more than two requests for deferral by an applicant be granted by the Commission. (6) Notice of the date of the deferred public hearing shall be sent as required in Article IV above. (7) If the applicant is not prepared to move forward after two deferral requests have been granted by the Commission, the following options are available to the Commission as circumstances require: (i) Hold the public hearing and grant or deny the application; (ii) Defer the public hearing on the Commission's own motion for cause; or (iii) Dismiss the application without prejudice or with prejudice against refilling the same application within one (1) year. COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020 Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, led the presentation of the item. Commissioner Robert Hodge stated that the Commissioners should disclose all conversations. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that they could not be like Mark Twain’s perfect juror, who knows nothing and can’t read. The Commissioners live in this society. They have a responsibility to be objective and not be swayed by citizen comment. Ms. Latimer recommended that all emails and letters be forwarded to the Staff for d istribution to all Commissioners and the project file. Ms. Latimer will draft something and send to the Commission ahead of the next meeting. The Commissioners were encouraged to forward any other items for by-law changes to the Staff for inclusion in the staff report. The item will be placed on the February 2020 agenda for changes. Chair Russell asked if the Commission was amenable to revising the text on the five -day notice for withdrawal. On that, Mr. Minyard explained that it was there for courtesy of the public. If Staff knows an item will be on deferral, they can notify the public not to attend in advance. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he was in favor of the change in the by-laws. Page 16 of 18 Ms. Latimer stated that there will be a vote next month for the by-law changes and that this discussion today will satisfy the requirements for the by-laws to be changed. STAFF UPDATE: February 10, 2020 The proposed amendment will be presented to the Commission for adoption. A clean version of the by-laws will be presented at the meeting to be signed with the amendment date on the original. COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission with the two items that had been presented earlier. Page Wilson, 324 E 15th Street, stated that the by-laws mean a lot and that that the Commission should slow down and think twice about revising the by-laws. He read Article II Purpose to the Commission. He said that according to training he attended, the Commission should be consistent in dealing with applications. He had three suggestions. First, place the by-laws on the website and give a copy of them to each applicant. He stated as an applicant, he has had inconsistencies in procedure. Secondly, he questioned if the Commission follows Roberts Rules or not. Chair Jeremiah Russell said that was outlined in the by-laws. Thirdly, the order of business should be followed. Shawn Overton, City Attorney’s Office, reminded Mr. Wilson that if he had a change to propose, he should state it. Otherwise, this was not a discussion on how meetings were being conducted or if the by-laws were being followed. Mr. Wilson stated that there were portions of the by-laws that he liked. He continued talking about the fact that consistency matters and wanted the Commission to increase the number of definitions in the by-laws. He stated that he was in support of removing the five day notice on deferrals. He asked the Commission to reconsider the time constraint on reconsiderations and withdrawals. (E General Policies 7d. and 6b) He warned the Commission about precedence and treating people equally. He would like to revisit and change arbitrary numbers in the by-laws that dictate time. He continued that he would like the Commission to review the precedents policy. (E General Policies 10). Mr. Wilson feels that the Commission has used precedents to vote for or against certain people in the past. Vice Chair Holder said that the text currently says what Mr. Wilson wants to change it to. Chair Russell said that each case was different since the Commission considered the context of the site of each one. Mr. Wilson spoke about submitted materials being kept for 90 days (General Policies 12 Submitted materials). He said that the number should be reduced. He noted that the procedure of an administrative appeal should be defined. Chair Russell said that is not really a by-law issue. Mr. Overton stated that a lot of dates that Mr. Wilson is calling arbitrary are in fact based on state law and city ordinance. Chair Russell asked if there were any specific changes to the by-laws that he would like to propose. Mr. Wilson stated no. He did encourage the Commission to have more discussion and dialogue about the item. Frances Missy McSwain, 407 E 10th, asked if the by-laws were on the website. Staff responded no. She had a question on how the by-laws were interpreted regarding ex parte communication Page 17 of 18 in relation to Staff communication and how and when ex-parte comments were related to the Commission. Chair Russell spoke about a request to change “E General Policies 6 b” to clarify what a material change is. He suggested a list of criteria: design, materials, footprint, orientation, etc. and that reference be made to the 11 design factors. He recommended changing the wording from “material change” to “substantial change” with a definition in the by-laws to be referenced in the Guidelines. He asked for more clarity on what that means. Vice Chair Ted Holder spoke about “E General Policies 7 d’. He needed clarification on the 12 months and what “substantial change” meant. Chair Russell said that it would be worth considering but in one instance they would be amending the Denied or Amended Application and the other would before withdrawn applications. Chair Russell stated that he thinks the time frame is reasonable. Chair Russell asked if anybody else had any ideas on the ex-parte communication issue. Vice Chair Holder asked Mr. Minyard about the items that were to be voted on tonight. Mr. Minyard read the text of what was on the agenda. Chair Russell asked the Commission to look at the withdrawal section and to be consistent on the definition of material changes. Mr. Minyard said that he would check the rest of the by-laws to make sure that there was consistency on changes throughout the document. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. Page 18 of 18 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff reported on issue at 618 Rock Street that might not come before the Commission and may instead be approved with a Certificate of Compliance. He knew that the owners did not get a building permit. Certificates of Compliance There were none issued since the last hearing. Guidelines Revision No report. Citizen Communication Page Wilson, 324 E 15`x, stated that at one time he thought ex- officio members could vote. Mr. Wilson asked if the Historic District Commission was quasi - judicial or quasi legislative. He stated the ruling of Second Baptist Church versus the HDC. Chair Russell advised him that the time to speak about the bylaws had passed. He continued and said that he prefers a more informal setting for the Commission meetings. He spoke of FOIA communication and said it was improper for two commissioners to discuss an item. He would like the opportunity to present his case to the Commissioners informally. He finished by saying that his time on the Commission was easy because he never voted against anything. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:28 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date