Loading...
HDC_03 12 2007DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 12, 2007, 5:03 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Kay Tatum Marshall Peters Susan Bell (arrived late) Members Absent: Wesley Walls City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: None II. Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. III. Approval of Minutes a. January 8, 2007 Edits to the minutes were discussed. Paragraphs G, H and I were added to other matters and distributed at the meeting. Commissioner Peters made a motion for approval of the minutes as resubmitted to contain Paragraphs G, H and I were added to Other Matters. Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded. The Minutes were approved with 3 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. b. February 5, 2007 Marshall Peters made a motion to approve minutes as distributed an dispense with reading of the edits. Kay Tatum seconded. The Minutes were approved with 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. (Commissioner Bell arrived before vote.) IV. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. none V. New Certificates of Appropriateness Chair Newbern announced that the commission was waiting for a fax before discussion could begin on the new Certificates of Appropriatenesses. Debra Weldon left the room to check if a fax had been received from the applicant. When she returned to the room, she did have a fax from the applicant, Jay and Barbara Core, stating that they will not be able to attend. The fax was a request to hear the item without them being present. The fax was read into the record. The time and date stamp was incorrect because of daylight savings time. Debra Weldon explained the procedural requirement for an applicant to attend in the bylaws (V E9 ) and that the commission could waive this bylaw with a one time bylaw waiver under Article 8. With the language of the bylaws and the permission of the applicant, Ms. Weldon recommended the Commission to waive the bylaws as an alternative to deferrals of the applications. Kay Tatum made a motion to waive the bylaws in section V E 9 to allow a hearing to be held without the applicant to be present. Commissioner Marshall Peters seconded. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked the motion to be clarified that it was for both items. The motion was restated by Commission Tatum to include both items and was seconded by Commissioner Peters. Mr. Minyard clarified to the commission that by hearing the item with out them being present, the Commission still had the option of voting for the item or deferring the item for cause. The motion to waive the attendance item for both items was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. 2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One DATE: March 12, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core ADDRESS: 1016/1018 Rock Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1016/1018 Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 8 Block 45 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house at 1018 Rock Street is a ca. 1890's residence and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Local significance Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people Location of Project of social prominence. 1988 survey states that it is a "Vernacular Cottage ". This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the south side. A six feet wood dog -ear top fence is requested. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: None of record. 3 1016/1018 Rock Street 1016/1018 Rock Street PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 6' tall wood fence to match the existing fence on the property on the east, north and west sides of the property. The fence will be placed on the southern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the two houses at 1016 and 1018 Rock Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT Sketch for both applications AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front facade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. The fence would meet with the gate that is at the front facade of the house. The gate section spanned between the two buildings (1016 and 1020 Rock Street). To make the six -foot section start at the halfway point of the building would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. 4 COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. When the building at 1020 Rock Street will be demolished, there will be gaps in the fence. 1016/1018 Rock Street are rental properties for the Cores and the request is to provide fencing for the tenants. He continued by reading a part of the fencing section of page 66 of the Guidelines. He referenced photos in the staff report and explained how the application differed from the guidelines. Chair Newbern asked if there was any record of the fence that is parallel to Rock Street spanning from 1016/1018 to 1020 being approved by the commission. Mr. Minyard said that he could not find any record of it coming before the commission for a COA. There was a discussion on other approvals of fencing in the other item. Mr. Minyard stated that this item (No. One) was not required to go to the Board of Adjustment. He continued to state the recommendation of approval. Chair Newbern asked if the Commission had the option of asking the non - conforming fence be moved halfway back to where it should have been put. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked questions about a possible fence that runs east and west parallel to the 1020 Rock Street building. Mr. Minyard clarified that 1020 Rock Street building was built on the north and west property lines and that there was not a fence there. The 1020 Rock Street building serves as the fence for the neighboring properties. He noted that the existing fence is not part of the application. He stated the staff recommendation from the staff report. Mr. Minyard clarified for Commissioner Peters that the fence in this item was for the two rent houses to the north and that it would provide enclosure for pets or whatever. Commissioner Tatum also stated that the fence shown in the photos on page two of the staff report was the entrance to the house behind. Commissioner Kay Tatum made a motion to approve the item with staff recommendations. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded. Commissioner Peters stated that the issue to him was that the fence that is there would not be allowed under the guidelines and that he would not want to adjoin a fence that was against the guidelines to another fence that was improper. The motion failed with a vote of 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. A discussion occurred on whether to expunge or rescind the previous vote. Ms. Weldon checked the bylaws and found the provision for expunging the vote. Commissioner Tatum made a motion to expunge the previous vote. Commissioner Peters seconded and the motion to expunge was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Commissioner Peters summarized the application and his position of how the fence does not adhere to the guidelines. He continued that if the commission approved the fence abutting it, that they would in essence be approving the existing fence that had not been approved by the commission in the first place. Mr. Minyard stated that the fence is non - conforming to the guidelines but is not a non - conforming fence according 5 to the zoning code. It does not require a Board of Adjustment variance. Mr. Peters relayed comments from other property owners about how they have felt that they had been wronged concerning the height of fences in the district. They stated there needed to be more uniform and consistent. Chair Carolyn Newbern summarized the comments of staff recommendations that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to match the non - complying fence, Mr. Peters comments of what the commission should be considering is the proposed fence, and the guidelines state that the fence should be three feet tall to the midpoint of the house and then six feet tall thereafter. Ms. Weldon noted that since the applicant was not in attendance, that it was an option for the Commission to defer the item. The applicant could amend the application at that time. There was a discussion that the applicant would need to amend their application for the commission to vote on different heights of the fences. If the item was deferred, the applicant could amend their application at that later date. Ms. Weldon advised the commission that the commission could not amend their application. Mr. Peters made a motion to vote on the item as presented. It was not seconded. Mr. Minyard asked for a point of clarification from Ms. Weldon that if the application was denied and they came back with another application for a shorter fence, would that not be a substantially different application that could be filed within the one year limit? It was decided that a different height of fence was a significantly different application. Chair Newbern made the point that these questions asked are why the applicant needs to be present at the hearing. Chair Newbern stated that there are issues that need to be answered from the applicant. Commissioner Tatum asked if Mr. Minyard had been on the property. He answered that he had been by the property, but only on the sidewalks. She asked if the air condenser units were just on the other side of the fence. He stated that he did not know. She continued that the fence might be used to hide any ac units that were there. Commissioner Peters asked if all of the questions had been written down that was to be asked of the applicants. There was a discussion of how long a deferral can be granted. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer the application for one month for cause for additional information that was brought up in the meeting. Commission Bell seconded the motion. The questions that the commission would like answered are as follows: 1(Location of the air conditioner units in relation to 1020 Rock Street building, 2) Justification as to why the fencing cannot be built to the Guidelines specification of 3 feet high to the mid -point of the house and then six feet thereafter or starting with a six feet tall section at the midpoint of the house and how many feet of each type of fencing would be involved, 3) If existing six foot fence at the front facade of the house could be relocated at the midpoint of the house, 4) Photos of the interior of the courtyard area 6 (the area north of the 1020 north wall), 5) Which side of fence to be placed outwards, and 6) State reason for necessity of six foot fence instead of shorter fence. Commissioner Peters asked if Staff had permission to go on the property. Staff said no. Chair Newbern stated that the burden of proof should be on the applicants to justify any requests. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. There were no citizens present for this item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. STAFF UPDATE: April 2, 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. February 9, 2407 Brian Minyard L.R. Historic District Commission Dept. of Planning and Dev 723 W. Markham St. Little 12ocic. AR 72201 Re: 1016 Rock Street - Fence Project Brian, The enclosed COA is to add an additional 50' of .fence 6 foot high on the south property line of 1016 Rock. When the building is demolished it will leave an empty/exposed area. The fence will match the existing 6' dog -eart picket on the fiont/east, north, and west sides of the property. Thanks, Barbara G. Core I '� C]D&--ca Gs, - t. T 6 -100 -5J 0 4r"'.uz tco GO so qOJ Cover letter from applicant DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1344 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public Nearing: —day of 2. Address of Property: 3. Legal Description of w. Property 200 _._at ______.. P.M. 5. Owner's Agent: 5. Project Description (sddhiorwt pwu may boadMd): _ lr .�_ a �. � \L �'.�..rw. i.a._._t..- w.�... �.. ►. .wV.�l�_� jn� ilh. 6. 7. Estimated Cost of impro`enamts: v 19 t�*5 _ 8. 76natg Classifitcatiou: Is the proposed change a permitted use" Yes No li 9. Signature of Owner or Agent: po 3em� ' — (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two DATE: March 12, 2007 APPLICANT: Barbara G. Core ADDRESS: 316 East 11th Street COA Installation of fence REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 316 East 11th Street. The property's legal description is the West 72' of Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. (The legal description of 1020 Rock is the East 68' of Lot 7, Block 45.) The building at 316 East 11 th Street is a ca. 1900- 1910 Garage building and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District as stated in the 1988 Survey. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priorit II (I bein the hi hest and III being the Location of Project lowest) and of no known Historical Significance of Local Significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. The 1978 Survey lists it as 1895 construction. This application is for the installation of a fence. With the removal of the building at 1020 Rock Street, a gap will be in the fencing of this property on the east side. An eight feet wood fence is requested with a style to be similar to the one already approved on the south side. 10 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: September 22, 2006, a Certificate of Compliance was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for replacement of wood garage door to match in profile, panels, and detailing of the original. August 4, 2005, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for renovations to 1020 Rock Street that included fencing between 1020 and 316 on the south property line. March 13, 2002, a COA was issued to Barbara and Jay Core for the addition of a potting shed addition to the rear of 316 E 11th Street. January 2, 1986, a COA was issued to Lester O. Gaines to modify the central garage door that was never implemented. 316 East 11th Street Front (South) Elevation 1020 Rock and 316 East 11th Street 316 East 11th Street potting shed on right 316 East 11th Street West elevation PROPOSAL: The application is for fifty feet of 8' tall wood fence to compliment the existing fence on the property on the south side of the property. The fence will be placed on the eastern property line. When the building at 1020 Rock Street is demolished, a gap in the fence will be created for the structure at 316 East 11th Street. Other houses in the neighborhood have six foot wood privacy fences on the side yards. The new fence will be similar to the fence on the southern property line with the exception of the brick piers. The new fence will not have the brick piers. 11 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 66 of the guidelines state: Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no taller than six feet (72'), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence should be set back from the front fagade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls. This fence is on the east side property line of 316 E 11 th Street. The fence would meet with the fences at the north and south property lines that are already eight feet tall. To make this new section be six -foot tall would not be, as Staff believes, aesthetically pleasing. This item is on the Board of Adjustment's agenda for March 26, 2007. It has been filed because of the additional height of eight feet versus the code maximum of six feet in height. Existing fence on north property line of 316 E 11th NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one call that supported the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a fence permit. 2. Project to be completed within 90 days of obtaining permit. COMMISSION ACTION: March 12, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the item. He included an overview of the property ownership of the applicants. He continued to discuss previous application on the site for the previously approved fencing. The approved fence was for 8' wood fence with brick piers on the south property line and 8' without any piers on the north property line. The proposed fence is to be a wood fence without any brick piers to match the existing fence on the north property line. He noted that this item is going to the Board of Adjustment on March 26. The zoning code specifies a maximum of 6 feet tall for side fences, and this is proposed at 8 feet tall. This report and the minutes will be given to the staff of the Board of Adjustment for inclusion in their write up. He stated the staff recommendation of approval. Chair Carolyn Newbern remembered the previous application to the site and the plea for an 8' fence for security and to visually block the views. She continued that the 12 commission approved a fence that did not comply with the guidelines because of special circumstances. Mr. Minyard described the various fences (the height and location of them) and the height of the proposed fences. Commissioner Peters stated that with the building no longer there, he did not see the need for the additional height of the fence. (The building was approved for demolition in a separate COA on February 5, 2007.) He continued and referred to the guidelines that recommend having a shorter fence. He remembered that special considerations were given for the added height on the fence, but those conditions are no longer a factor and that he could not support the request for added height. He did not agree with approving another fence to match a fence that had been approved (for special considerations) against the guidelines. He stated that the commission should follow the guidelines or change the guidelines to be 8 feet. Mr. Minyard restated that the commission may approve items that do not comply with the guidelines for special circumstances. Keep your guidelines in consideration when you vote and it is the commissions' job to say if the special considerations necessitate an approval not in compliance with the guidelines. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that the applicant did reference other fences in the area at the earlier hearing. Commissioner Susan Bell stated that she could not support an eight -foot fence on a vacant lot. She continued that there were ways to join an eight and a six -foot fence that was aesthetically pleasing. There was a discussion that the vote was on the application as proposed, the commission could not change the application. Chair Newbern restated that it was a jumble of fence heights and that either way it went, there was going to be a joining of a six and an eight -foot fence one place or another. She restated the proposal with staff recommendation. Commissioner Peters stated that he could not vote for this in good conscience as presented and would ask for a deferment. Commissioner Peters made a motion to defer for cause (for more information) for one month. He asked for clarification for the need for an eight -foot fence from the applicant. Commissioner Bell seconded. The motion to defer passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Chair Newbern asked Staff to notify the Staff of the Board of Adjustment of the outcome of this meeting. Chair Newbern asked if the applicant needed to notify property owners again if it was deferred. Staff answered no. Ms. Weldon asked that the record show that no citizens were present for either item. Legal notification requirement were met for this item. 13 STAFF UPDATE: April 2, 2007 Staff submitted questions that were discussed during the meeting to the applicant in person. The Applicant has failed to provide any additional information to the Staff during the two weeks prior to the printing of this agenda. Staff therefore changes its recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral for one month to obtain additional information. 14 February 9, 2007 Brian Minyard L.R. Historic District Commission Dept. of Planning and Dev 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 316 E. 11th — Fence Project Brian, The enclosed COA is to add an additional 50' of fence 8 foot high on the east property line of 316 E. 11th Street. The fence will be of 8' cedar in a board on board style as already approved and installed on the north property line. This fence will replace the gap left by the demolished building. Thanks, Barbara G. Core ° [.00E, z!9C -tIT2 dLEtEQ LO C30 Cover letter from applicant 15 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street I.ittk Rack, Arkums 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public Hearing:_ day of 200 —at — p.m. 2. Address of Property: 3. Legal Description of PMM)l ta-1— I - r% , , f 4.'1.-Ifovem, (3wncr S. Ownce a Agent; Pbone/Faxffi-mail) 6. Px\,ijmt Description (*Wir.w I puam =Y be ad kd)! Xft� 1-t- 4 L a 1, EsumatedCost. of Fyn JxD vein enm -sop S. Zoning Classification: . ........ Is the proposed change apermitted Use? Yes NO 9. Signature of Owner or Agent (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 16 VI. Other Matters Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would not be present to the Meeting on April 9, 2007. a. Enforcement issues Mr. Minyard stated that letters have been sent to the properties that had been mentioned before, and the staff would do it's best to keep up with the air conditioners at 420 E 9th Street. b. Ordinance Revisions Mr. Minyard asked Ms. Weldon if the commission could get an update on the ordinance revisions. Ms. Weldon responded that the changes had been made to be able to have jurisdiction in municipal court for enforcement issues in the historic district. Mr. Minyard restated for the commission that violations are misdemeanors and they will go to municipal court. The question is now who is qualified to give citations for enforcements. The language into the last version supports that enforcement issue. It was discussed that the commission needs to have one final look at the draft. Mr. Minyard stated that the Planning Department had six zoning enforcement officers that could be trained for enforcement purposes. c. Demolitions Mr. Minyard asked if everyone had the handout on demolitions. Ms. Core had asked the commission to streamline or expedite the process of demolitions for unsafe or unsound structures. He continued with the ordinance differences between feature and structure and quoted the ordinance. He said that the Staff was not of one mind on this item and that more discussions needed to be held. A discussion ensued about the difference between visually falling down at that moment and the possibility of falling down in the future. The definition of unsafe was discussed. Ms. Weldon continued that it was a question of whether the Commission wanted to "Staff it out" or did the Commission want to hear all demolitions. Maybe there was a middle ground on the issue with some demos going to the Commission and some not. It was decided to have additional discussions on this topic with the full commission present. A discussion was held as to hold up on the rest of the ordinance revisions or to go to the Board of Directors with what the commission has now. d. Street toppers The street toppers have generated a lot of discussion around town in the city offices. Public Works and Planning are having a discussion on Wednesday to discuss these for size, shape, colors, etc. Mr. Bozynski has to approve locations before giving the locations to Public Works. Mr. Minyard continued on the problem of getting them on the correct side of the street with the available poles. He discussed placing them on the exterior of the district and some in the interior as well as the entrances to the neighborhood off the freeway. 17 e. Surveys MacArthur Park is progressing and so is the Capitol Zoning expansion. Dunbar is in the hands of the Housing Department. Chair Newbern asked that CTAC to be included on the list for the RFQ. f. Preservation Plan Made contact with a speaker for May. A grant has been made to the Preserve America group for monies to fund the plan. The CLG grant applications are due in the middle of April and we will be asking for money for the preservation plan from them. g. MacArthur Park Master Plan Chair Newbern and Marshall Peters advised the group of meetings that she had been attending that discusses MacArthur Park, its usage and surroundings, including a Museum and Heritage Trail. Mr. Minyard continued that the group wanted to connect the River Market area with the park itself and the surrounding neighborhood. A discussion was had about the composition of the group and ex parte communication. It was decided that Ms. Newbern was to attend the meetings and to update the Commission. h. Overall guidelines for historic signs citywide It was decided to place this item on the agenda in the future. It would cover all historic plaques in the city. Mr. Minyard asked if the Preservation Plan was an appropriate venue to give guidelines on all plaques — what the standards are. The discussion was whether the Commission had jurisdiction over the entire city, whether the preservation plan was to be adopted by ordinance or resolutions, whether part of the preservation plan was ordinance and part guidelines. The questions over jurisdictions need to be answered. VII. Adjournment A motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Commissioner Peters and was seconded by Commissioner Tatum and was approved with 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 18