Loading...
HDC_05 14 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, May 14, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Susan Bell Marshall Peters Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Terry Burruss Byl Harriell Page Wilson II. Approval of Minutes April 9, 2007 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters to approve the minutes as submitted and was seconded by Commissioner Wesley Walls. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness 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. A DATE: May 14, 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 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. 2 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. 3 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 4 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 5 (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. COMMISSION ACTION: April 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was 6 made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: May 3 2007 A fence has been installed on the property without approval of the Historic District Commission or a permit being purchased from the City of Little Rock Planning Department. The fence has been installed what appears to be a six foot tall fence (Staff did not enter onto property to measure fence) that starts midway back from the front facade. This fence does conform to the design guidelines. 1016/1018 Rock Street (same angle as photo on 1016/1018 Rock Street as viewed from the page 3 of this report.) intersection of Rock and 11th. The gate, instead of being at the front facade of the house, has been installed near the midpoint of the house. The mailboxes are on the fence as before. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following condition: 1. Obtain building permit from the City of Little Rock retroactively. COMMISSION ACTION: Mav 12, 2007 Commissioner Marshall Peters made a motion to waive the bylaws on Article V, Section E (9) concerning the applicant be present for the item to be heard. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the Staff Update as presented in the agenda. He stated the recommendation was for approval with the condition of obtaining a building permit retroactively. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked if there were any penalties possible on this application. Mr. Minyard stated that a triple permit charge could be applied, however the regular price for a fence permit would not be much. Commissioner Wesley Walls commented 7 that it was the principle involved- building a fence without approval — even if the fence did meet the guidelines. A conversation ensued about denying the application at which point Mr. Walls asked what would be the point of denying the application. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, said that the commission would have to state the reason for the denial. Ms. Weldon stated that this commission is not a punitive commission. Mr. Walls added he agreed and that the fence did meet the guidelines. Mr. Minyard stated that the fence was built to one of the options discussed by the commission in the first hearing. Commissioner Kay Tatum commented that the fence looked nice. She made a motion to approve the application and then amended it to include the condition of obtaining a permit within ninety days. Mr. Walls seconded both the first and the amended motions. Mr. Walls stated that he did not appreciate what was done by the applicant. Mr. Peters stated for the record that the applicant was present at the last meeting, but refused to stay for his item to be heard. Mr. Walls stated that the commission had no basis for denial. The motion for approval with the condition of obtaining a building permit within ninety days was approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 no. 8 February 9, 2007 Brian Minyard l..R. Historic District Commission Dept. of Planning and. Dev 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, 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-ear picket on the front/east, north, and west sides of the property. Thanks, Barbara G. Core t "j r.00e -r3�F, bt ��*� •� �+r cn to ea Cover letter from applicant 9 DEPARTNMINT 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 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1, Date of Public .Hearing: --day of 200 _...rat _ p.m. 2. AddrwS OfPmpeRy, .' Szs�srs._lt - - - - -- -- 3. Lzgal Description of Property: --1-I' 1' . x %&z" 4'5 . C' r N�'.�no 4. 'Property 5, Owner's Agent: - �phone/FaY/E- rnail; 6. Proiect Description taddslotwnawA rmvbassdpA): •-A G JJJ0.N.zJ VVok V. A"tF,V E. Zoning ClaasTication; ,_,••_ is Ore proposed change a permitted use? Yes No 9. Signarure of Owner or Agent. 1720 T (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 a.400 'S'S GIZGt80 1.0 80 q04 Application 10 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. B DATE: May 14, 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 11th 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 being the highest 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. 11 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 11tth 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. 12 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: 3. Obtaining a fence permit. 4. 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 13 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. 14 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, COMMISSION ACTION: April 9, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, began the presentation of the item. He stated that the applicant had not provided any information that had been requested from the Commission. He did state that the applicant was present and that he could answer the questions in the hearing. Mr. Jay Core, the applicant, interrupted and stated that he wanted his twenty minutes in front of the commission before his items being heard. He said that Mr. Minyard said that he could have twenty minutes at the first of the hearing. Mr. Minyard reminded him that in their last conversation that he was told it was at the discretion of the commission to change the order of the agenda. Mr. Core said that he did remember that. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked Mr. Core what was the nature of the discussion that he wanted to address in citizen communication. He responded that he wanted to ask the commission questions. She asked if they were in reference to the items before the commission that day. He said yes and no. Mr. Core stated that he wanted his twenty minutes and would probably not stick around for his items. Chair Newbern asked for a motion to change the order of the agenda to place Citizen Communication next. The change failed due to lack of a motion. Mr. Minyard noted for the record that Mr. Core left the room at 5:12. Mr. Minyard stated that without the applicant being present, that Staff would like to restate the recommendation of deferral of the items for cause, that being a lack of information. A motion to defer both items, A and B, to the May 14, 2007 agenda was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Wesley Walls. The motion passed to defer the items with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: May 2, 2007 There has been no communication with the applicant concerning this application. Staff recommends to withdraw the application without prejudice. COMMISSION ACTION: May 12, 2007 Commissioner Wesley Walls made a motion to waive the bylaws on Article V, Section E (9) concerning the applicant be present for the item to be heard. Commissioner Marshall Peters seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 15 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short presentation of the Staff Update as presented in the agenda. He referred to the current ordinance in Sec 23 -133 (b) that if an item were deferred more than 90 days, it would be approved automatically. He continued that the applicant had refused certified and return receipt mail. He stated the revised Staff recommendation of withdrawal of the item. Mr. Walls asked if there was a letter of support on this item. Mr. Minyard said there was not one in the file and there had been letters of support on the demolition of the structure. Chair Carolyn Newbern restated that the commission needed to approve, deny or withdraw the item. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, summarized the bylaws that state that if denied, the application cannot be refiled within twelve months except for cause and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. She also summarized Section 7 of the bylaws that deal with Withdrawals. There was a discussion among the commissioners and Ms. Weldon. Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the application as filed. Mr. Walls seconded. Mr. Peters stated that he did not approve of the application, that the applicants did not come to the hearings on either agenda date, and that the fence was not within the guidelines due to the fact that the applicants had not answered any of the questions and that the guidelines require a COA BEFORE building permit and construction of any item. Mr. Walls said that he did not feel it was appropriate to approve an application if the applicants were not there. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked if the ninety-day rule could be amended. It was noted that the ninety-day rule for approval was part of the ordinance, not the bylaws. The commission could not amend it. Chair Newbern said that she felt differently since the applicant had not been following procedures and that they were not taking advantage of a couple of opportunities to explain the application and the need for that fence. The motion to approve the application as filed was denied with a vote of 0 ayes and 5 noes. 16 February 9, 2007 Brian Minyard L.R. Historic District Commission Dept. of Planning and Dev 723 W. Markhmn 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 sir the north property line. This fence will replace the gap left by the durnol.ishcdl building. Thanks. Barbara G. Core l `c; Lp(c.••'."'.�t: -bid ��4ya ''J'E� dLEjf.O GI7 C� q�� Cover letter from applicant 17 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 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 De&criptb.n of Pmverty:_C_,' its— tea. 1_f _r)OLP1,x 5. Owner's Asexic .. IPbone(Fax/E-mail) 6, Projm_lt Description rxKtiae l pogm ma! bo ad&4Y. �5,.4.� Ritimated Cost of 1nipnwemn(9:_ S. zoning Classification: Is the proposed change a permitted use? Yes No 9. Signature of Owner or Agcut:- 2. (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 0.403 -9-8 4LC:eo 40 So q*j Application 18 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: May 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Terry Burruss, Terry Burruss Architects ADDRESS: 1011 McMath and 712 E 11th Street COA REQUEST: Demolish 1011 McMath and warehouse addition to 712 E 11th Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1011 McMath and 712 E 11th Street. The property's legal description is Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Block 5 Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The house at 1011 McMath Street is a non- contributing 1900's house with alterations, according to the 1988 survey. The 1978 Survey lists it a vernacular cottage. The Bylites building at 712 E 11th street is known as the Hunter Methodist Church. According to the 1978 survey, it is a vernacular style building. The Location of Project west portion of the building is an addition that was added in the mid 1970's. The original portion of the building, to the east, is a Charles Thompson building, a classic revival structure. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with people of social prominence. This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to demolish the house at 1011 McMath Avenue. The second portion is the request to add an addition on the north side of the structure at 712 E 11th Street (at 1101 McMath), and new fencing to enclose the parking area. The third portion is the restoration of the porch on 19 the south side of the building. This application will go to the Planning Commission because industrial uses are a Conditional Use Permit in UU zoning. Existing west (front) elevation 1011 McMath Existing south (side) elevation 1011 McMath Existing west elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street Existing east (alley) elevation of 1011 McMath 20 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On February 11, 1999, a COA was approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the restoration of building from storm damage and addition of overhead door on west wall of the red brick addition. On November 6, 1990, a COA was approved and issued to Byl Harrell for replacement of a metal awning with a fabric awning. On November 27, 1989, a COA was Existing west (front) elevation of 1007 McMath from approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the 1978 Survey paving of the west parking lot, and installation of an overhead door in the original church building. PROPOSAL: This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to demolish the house at 1011 McMath Avenue and the sidewalk leading to the house. A pin oak tree will be added on the site to replace the existing tree that will be damaged during construction. Poplars or junipers will be planted on the north side while burford hollies will be planted at the east and west ends of the building. The second portion of the request is to add a warehouse addition on the north side of the complex on the lot at 1101 McMath. This addition will connect with the original church structure and form a "U" shape building. The addition is approximately 30 feet tall and 30 feet wide on the McMath facade. On the alley side, the addition is 40 feet wide. Overall length east to west of the addition is 134 feet. New fencing to enclose the parking area (nine feet tall wood fence to match the other existing) is proposed along with a rolling gate on the west side of the lot. This addition is for additional warehouse space. The third portion of the request is the restoration of the porch on the south side of the original structure. The original Charles Thompson drawings have been researched and the porch will be recreated. Landscape: The streetscape /landscape of this block would be changed dramatically. Currently, from north to south, there is an oversized vacant lot; at 1007 McMath, the Gilmore Cottage, a 1899 Eastlake cottage on an oversized lot; the house at 1011 McMath; and then the Bylites complex. The two houses have typical front yard setbacks with grass and trees. The parking for 1007 McMath is a ribbon drive and has been overgrown. The parking at 1011 McMath is indiscernible where it used to be. The building was last used for housing out of town actors /interns at the Repertory Theatre. The Bylites building has a parking lot on the northwest portion of the site along with a nine -foot tall privacy fence near the front property line. While the new building would be 21 set back 22 feet from the west property line, the proposed nine foot tall fence and rolling wood gate would be approximately five feet off of the property line. Environment: After the construction of the I-30 Freeway through this part of town, the neighborhood changed from single family houses with public uses (church, school and hospital) to the combination of commercial, multi family and single family uses it is today. The area has lost five single - family houses since the 1988 survey including the City Hospital that was located in an English Revival style house. Later construction includes the Waffle House -- 1960's, 2 apartment buildings on 10th -- 1960's, and the Pizza Hut in the 1970's. The addition to the applicant's structure was made in the mid 1970's. The three remaining single family homes in the area are: 923 McMath — a 1910's residence with alterations; 1007 McMath, a 1890's Eastlake residence; and 1011 McMath — a 1900's residence with alterations. These three are fairly close to each other, close enough to get a sense of what the neighborhood used to be and establish the rhythm of the street which would have been similar to other sections of the district. Footprint: The footprint of the new warehouse addition is not totally foreign to the neighborhood. This are of MacArthur Park historic district does have larger footprint buildings, namely the School of Law, a 1910's structure, and the new dorm building across the alley from this structure. The church itself (the applicant's building) is the third largest building in the area. The dorm building is approximately 13,000 square feet footprint and the proposed footprint of the property would be slightly smaller. Although, with the nine foot tall wood privacy fence / rolling gate and the smaller setbacks, the footprint could be perceived as even larger. Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat. There are other flat roofs in the immediate vicinity: The new dorm building to the east, the existing church building, and the law school building. These buildings are taller and larger footprint than the proposed structure. These flat roofs are also farther away from single - family pitched roof houses than the proposed addition. Envelope: The building mass would be perceived much larger than the current structures. While the original church is two stories with a raised basement, the addition is within four feet of the top of the cornice on the original church. The pitched roof on the 1970's addition is the same height as the original church, but appears shorter because of the gable end. This addition at 30 feet wide and just over 30 feet tall will appear to loom over the neighboring house at 1007. Skin: The proposed addition is made of EIFS (drvyit). This material has not been used in the area. The bottom band of the building on the east, north and west sides will be of split face block in a band that corresponds with the watercourse banding on the original church. The block will be medium brown color with a gray -beige drvyit. Most commercial and multi - family buildings in the area are of brick while the single-family 22 houses are of wood. The proposed addition does have "window relief' ornamentation on the east, west and north elevation. This consists of a sunken panel effect of the same color of EIFS that will give shadow and texture to the facades. The proposed addition does mirror a portion of the cornice of the original church and brings that cornice around the proposed addition. That cornice would also be made of EIFS. Holes: The proposed building does not have any windows. There are three doors on the south side of the building, three pedestrian doors (one on the alley side) and one overhead door midway on the building at the loading dock. The doors will not be visible if the rolling wood gate is closed. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines state: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in: 1. Shape: The overall rectangular box shape of the warehouse addition is not compatible with the residential structure to the north (1007 McMath) with its porches, dormers, and irregular plan. 2. Scale (height and width): The height of the warehouse addition is approximately 30 feet in height. While this is approximately the same height at the ridgeline of the house at 1007 and the cornice line of the original church, the length and depth of the proposed addition will make the scale overwhelming. 3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a flat roof that is similar to the original church, dorm building, gas station, and law school. The 1960's apartments have a mansard roof. 4. Orientation to the street: The width of the warehouse addition is very similar to the width of the existing house at 1011 McMath. 5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional bays: There are no entrances, windows, porches, or divisional bays proposed for the exterior of the building to make it pedestrian friendly. There are "window relief' ornamentation on the east, north and west elevations of the building. These will be recessed panels in the EIFS to echo the window pattern on the east elevation of the original church. See the East Elevation on page A2.0. These panels would give some ornamentation to the west and north elevations of the addition. 6. Foundation height: The new building will have a raised foundation that is four feet above finished grade. The original church has a first floor of about eight feet above grade and the 1970's addition was built on grade. The house at 1007 has a raised foundation of approximately 24 inches. On the western face (McMath Street fagade), the raised foundation will be much higher than the house at 1007. 23 7. Floor to ceiling height: The floor to ceiling height is similar to the original church. However, with no distinction between upper and lower floors on the exterior of the building, it appears to be a one -story building. 8. Porch height and depth: There is not a porch on this building. The Loading dock is 4 feet off the ground, but is inside the parking area and does not relate to the street. 9. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick color tones, if frames – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The EIFS on the warehouse addition is a new material for the neighborhood. The existing buildings are brick and stucco; the house at 1007 is wood. 10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses, corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The texture of the warehouse addition has one thing in common with the original church. The "window relief' details are the width of one of the original windows, but about one and one half times the height, from the bottom of the first floor window to the top of the second floor window. 11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): While the footprint of the warehouse addition could be viewed as a mirror image of the 1970's sanctuary addition, the new warehouse addition dwarfs the house at 1007 McMath in height and bulk. Demolition: The Guidelines state: "Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the building is compatible with the district's architectural character in regards to style, period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a "contributing" historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status." The applicant has not given any information in the application for justification for removing this house other than the fact that they wish to enlarge their facilities. 24 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: May 14, 2007 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff report as presented in the agenda. He showed blueprints of the original porch to the commission. He stated the recommendation of denial. It was noted for the record that legal notification requirements have been met. Byl Harriell, the owner of Bylites, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he had owned the company for 17 years and the idea for the expansion was to add storage. He wanted all of his operation in one place; he currently has storage off site. He continued that he thought the addition would improve the look of the space. He spoke of the addition to the church (the red brick portion) was made in the 1960's instead of the 1970's as the Staff report states. He commented that he wanted to paint the exterior of the red brick addition and to pave the parking lot, and redo the sidewalks. The topic of discussion turned to the demolition of the house at 1011 McMath. Mr. Harriell said that he would be happy to give the house to anyone that would be willing to take it. Chair Carolyn Newbern stated for the record that she knew Byl Harriell but does not have any financial interest in this application. Terry Burruss, representing the applicant, said that he was trying to maximize the area available with the new building. He commented that the business was a fixture in the neighborhood and that they started the process by looking for other available sites. With the acquisition of the next -door lot, they could build on to the existing facility and blend with this small area of MacArthur Park. He continued that this part of MacArthur Park is different from the rest of MacArthur Park and that this expansion would not be appropriate north of 9th Street. With the existing vegetation, it is impossible to see the facility when coming from the north. Mr. Burruss continued that they looked at the heights of the existing and proposed structures. The height is similar to the church height, the addition, and the house to the north. He stated that it had EIFS on the top part of the addition, landscaping on the north side of the property (junipers) to break up the mass. He said that they felt it was a good approach to meet the client's needs and the possible development to the north. Mr. Burruss said that he had served on the mansion area advisory committee for 10 years. Mr. Burruss reviewed the area that the new development was going into: the Pizza Hut, the Shell Station, the Chinese restaurant, the mansard roof apartments, etc. He said that he did not feel that the area would be single family, but would probably be multi 25 family and multi story. He continued that the streetscape had changed with the addition of the commercial structures. Mr. Burruss said that maybe the house could be relocated to another location. Also, that the front of the building could be pulled back to the line of the house next door and possibly save the tree. He proposed the split face block for the base of the building because he did not think that a third color of brick on the building would be appropriate. He could not get a brick color to match the original church. He wanted the addition to be muted. They tried to match the cornice of the new addition with the cornice of the old building. Chair Newbern asked if there were any citizens to speak on the application. Page Wilson stated that he owned three lots abutting to the north of this application. He expressed that the zoning of the land was UU Urban Use zoning. He continued that UU zoning is about density and mixed use. He stated that the area is not so much of a neighborhood anymore. While it is mixed use, it is not designed as such. He supports the application, density, and diversity in the area. Mr. Minyard stated that the application is on the Planning Commission Agenda for a Conditional Use Permit on June 7th. He sated that the property is zoned UU and that a industrial use requires a CUP. The expansion of the applicant's "grandfathered" business triggered the CUP hearing. Chair Newbern commented that the three portions of the application make it more difficult. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked that Staff separate all the items next time on separate applications in the future. Chair Newbern asked if the commission would talk about the portions of the application separately. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked a question about the location of the structure and which elevation went where. There was a discussion and the question was answered. Mr. Burruss commented that the addition was seven feet off the side property line and that landscaping would be installed to break up the mass of the building on its north side. Commissioner Susan Bell asked if the language of the application would be amended. Staff answered that the application could be amended and the vote would be based on that amendment. Mr. Walls commented on displacing the structure and what the net benefit to the neighborhood would be. The new addition relates to the church. It is a warehouse with no windows. He continued that the lack of windows bothered him. Natural light can save on electricity. He continued that the relation to 1007 is a concern, but the windows would improve that application. 26 Mr. Harriel was concerned about security and asked about burglar bars. Mr. Minyard stated that the guidelines state "Security bars should not be visible from the street." Mr. Burruss added the windows are 10' off the ground. The windows on the building could help the scale. Chair Newbern added that a security system could help. She continued that she had a problem with the lack of windows and the drvyit finish. Real stucco finish could be better. Mr. Peters said that the security bars should not be visible from the street but could be inside the windows. He was concerned about the relocation of the house. Mr. Minyard added that there is an option of glass with wire embedded in it to add to the security. Mr. Peters added that he would like to see windows in the addition. Mr. Burruss stated that the original church has real stucco on the west facade and that they could substitute real stucco on the addition. The addition of more expansion joints could make the addition better. They could also substitute brick instead of the split face block. Mr. Walls stated that he preferred the regular gray color in split face block instead of the other colors. Chair Newbern brought up the subject of the wood fence height and that it is not within the guidelines. Mr. Walls added that it matched the existing fence to the south. Mr. Walls asked what the purpose of the fence was. Mr. Harriel added that the fence masks a loading door. Mr. Burruss continued that the fence is actually a gate the serves the loading door beyond. It is not possible to landscape in front of the gate, because it would not open. He added that the driveway throat width is currently very wide and that the driveway will be reduced in width along with the additional fencing. The fence will shield the parking and loading areas. Mr. Walls asked what material the fence is. Mr. Burruss answered that it will be a wood fence, probably painted cedar. Mr. Walls commented about moving the fence and if it would improve use of the structure. Mr. Walls commented about the setback of the west facade of the addition. He wanted it to relate to the building at 1007. Mr. Burruss said he could do that. Chair Newbern asked if the dotted line was representational of the house location. She also asked the building be set back to the line of the old house. There was a discussion about the two loading doors on the dock in the northeast corner of the loading parking area. Mr. Peters stated that he was not "getting" the mass of the building addition. Mr. Walls commented that it was the same relation now with the church and 1011 as it is proposed to be with 1007 and the addition. Mr. Peters continued that landscaping would not hide the building. 27 Mr. Walls commented on the original porch restoration. Mr. Burruss stated that they would follow the original blueprints on the restoration. Chair Newbern asked if this was going to be the primary entrance to the building. The answer was yes. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lights and signage. Mr. Harriell stated that there would be security lights that will light the interior parking and loading areas at night. Mr. Burruss added that there would be one light on the door that faces the alleyway. Chair Newbern asked if the columns on the porch restoration would be wood. Yes was the answer. Mr. Peters commented on a typo on page 19 of the report. In the Proposal Section, second paragraph, the number should be 1011 instead of 1101. Mr. Peters continued to summarize the changes that would need to be made to the application: moving the west facade back, house to be moved instead of demolishing, adding windows, changing EIFS to stucco, maintaining the hedgerow on the north side, and the fence height to be six feet.. Chair Newbern added landscaping to the list. Mr. Walls said that he could understand the desire for the nine -foot fence, but the scale has an impact on the pedestrians. He continued that the added windows are more important on the east and west side, the west being more important. The building needs quality windows, clad windows, to mimic the style of the older windows. Maybe leaving a recess between the upper and lower windows would be good. Scale is appropriate, it is lower than the church, and it feels comfortable. Chair Newbern commented other procedural issues: either approve, approve as amended, defer or deny. A discussion was held on amending the application in the meeting with several items being amended with Staff approving the changes at later date when that applicant brings in the paperwork. Mr. Minyard stated that he did not have a problem on small changes to an application, but these changes were more than that. He did not feel comfortable with the scope of the changes and would prefer that the applicant defer to the next meeting and resubmit to include all of the proposed changes. Ms. Bell asked about if the application was denied verses deferred. The answer was that the application would have to re- notify and reapply if denied whereas the deferral would not require that. A discussion was held as to whether the house was structurally sound to move or not. Mr. Harriel stated that he would give the house to whoever wanted to move it. Mr. Wilson said that it might be financially unfeasible to move it. It takes a lot of time and money to do it. The commission then formalized a list of items to be considered in the deferral and resubmittal of the drawings. 1. Change demolition of the structure to a good faith effort to relocate the structure. 28 2. Footprint of addition to be moved back to the east to existing building location. 3. Add windows to more closely relate to the original church structure. 4. Substitute stucco for EIFS. The split face block will be in unfinished gray color. 5. Fence to be six feet tall 6. Hedgerow on north side to remain. 7. Clarify parking lot intent (paving and drainage issues) There was a request for a color rendering of the proposal. Mr. Harriel asked what the definition of good faith was. There was a discussion that included notices in the newspaper, sign on the property, notifying the CDC's into the area, notifying the DNA website, etc. It was decided that the applicant would provide information of how they have or will market the house at the next meeting and the commission will decide if it is a good faith effort. Mr. Walls stated that it was not an issue of the house was given away or not, either way the house leaves the site. Mr. Peters commented that it did matter, protection for the integrity of MacArthur Park was important and that he would prefer that the house be moved. Mr. Peters made a motion to defer for additional information to include addressing the seven concerns. Mr. Walls seconded. Mr. Burruss said that he has sat as a member of the Board of Adjustment and on the Mansion Advisory Committee and the he complimented the commission for talking with him and giving them lots of information to consider. The motion to defer was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. 29 1202 S. MAIN, SUITE 230 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 501-376-3675 FAX 376-3766 terry burruss Architect design, planning and interiors April 6, 2007 Brian Minyard, Planner II City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Bylites 712 East 11th Street Little Rock, Arkansas AVE #0634 Dear Mr. Minyard: Attached please find required copies for submittal of the above referenced project. Bylites desires to remove the existing residential structure and build a two story addition for warehouse purposes. The existing residential structure is in a state of disrepair and is currently inhabitable. The current owner has no desire to renovate this structure and has offered the land to Bylites. The proposed addition provides Bylites with much-needed storage space and allows them to rernain at this location. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. We appreciate your consideration on this application,. Yours very truly, G_�' Terry . Burruss, AIA Cover letter from applicant 30 RECEIVED APR 06 2007 BY: 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 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: �Q 1. Date of Public Hearing: �tday of ,r 07 200 Zat S p.m- 2. Address of Property: 712 3. Legal Description of Property: -� Zyl 4. Property Owner (Name, Address, Phone, Fax %i✓ , ° "�� Lbr 7°2AOOZ 271- f1 ffZKJ 5. Owner's Agent: ,o &/A.LTPhtne/p'ax/F? -mai) &'l ,�7S6e 6. Project D ser' ticsp (adt kkiionat ages may beaddc 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements: 2M3 k - 3, Zoning Classification: V Is the proposed change a permitted use? Yes 9. Signature of Owner r Agcn r��vil (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 31 VI. Other Matters Enforcement issues: The enforcement issues are the same as before, letters have been sent. Ordinance Revisions: There was a discussion if the ordinance was on the agenda for the next evening Board of Directors agenda. The commission will be notified tomorrow if it is or not. Bylaw Revision: The bylaw items based on notification will be presented at the next meeting. Preservation Plan: Mr. Minyard spoke about the preservation plan attempts at obtaining grant money for the preservation plan and the attempts to secure a speaker for the kickoff meeting. Joe Riley is not out of the question as a speaker, but timing may preclude him from being able to do it. He stated that the city still did not know about the status of the Preserve America Grant or the CLG grants for the plan. Citizen Communication: There were no citizens present. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn. The meeting ended at 7:25 p.m. Attest: �-0, 7 --4 Chair Date 32