Loading...
HDC_10 06 2005DEPARTMENT 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 MINUTE RECORD Thursday, October 6, 2005, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Members Present: Carolyn Newbern (Chair) Marshall Peters (Vice Chair) Wesley Walls (in at 5:05) Job Serebrov Kay Tatum Members Absent: None Deputy City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Charles Bloom Brian Minyard II. Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. III. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Commissioner Job Seberov to amend the agenda to move the approval of the minutes to the Other Matters section of the agenda. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. a. November 2004 Commissioner Peters moved for approval of the Minutes as submitted by staff. Commissioner Walls seconded. The minutes were approved with 3 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 abstaining. Gob Serebrov and Kay Tatum abstained.) b. September 1, 2005 The September 1, 2005 minutes were not voted on and will be placed on a later agenda following staff's corrections to the minutes. 1 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: September 1, 2005 APPLICANT: City of Little Rock (Little Rock Police Department) Tim Heiple, Agent ADDRESS: Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue, Little Kock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construction of a new 1500 square foot police substation. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue. The property's legal description is "the west 50' of lot 1 & the west 50' of the north 25' of lot 2, Block 40, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Since the building is of new construction it cannot be considered as a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District until it is at least 50 years old. The adjacent The property at Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Ave. Paragon building is nearing that age. This application is also undergoing subdivision application to subdivide the lot and establish an access easement. The application will be heard at the September 29, Planning Commission hearing in order to subdivide the property and allow for setback variances. Additionally, the applicant has applied for the October 13, 2005 hearing to recognize the remainder of the site as a parking lot. The reason for the setback variance is because the UU zoning classification has specified setback requirements for this portion of Capitol Avenue be a minimum setback of 25 feet and no parking allowed in the 25 foot setback. The applicant has indicated a lesser setback and requested parking spaces in that setback. 1 ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue ANALYSIS: There are several criteria related to this case in the District's Guidelines. The Design Guidelines for new construction of commercial buildings is similar to that of new residential structures. New buildings should maintain, not disrupt the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings. This calls for new construction to be compatible with existing historic J f �` Wasiewate, U� igr structures on the street block. lj Compatibility is calculated by �-j evaluating shape; building scale; Paragon ®L roof shape and pitch; orientation?�� `Y to the street; location and proportion of entrances, Surrounding properties. Properties north of Capitol and west of Cumberland windows, porches, and are not in the district. divisional bays; foundation height, floor-to-ceiling height; and porch height and depth. Exterior materials and material colors are looked at for compatibility as well. If the exterior to be used is brick and mortar, and color tones should be similar. New construction also requires amore in depth look at the exterior characteristics of the building. Details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, eave depths, watercourses, corner boards, etc. should be similar to those of surrounding properties. The ultimate goal is to ensure that new construction is compatible with the commercial neighborhood. This specific property is located at the northwestern edge of the district in an existing parking lot. In the immediate area there are no contributing structures to the historic district, although the Paragon building is less than ten years River Cities Travel Center. 2 ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue away from qualifying. Northeast of the application is the River Cities Travel Center which was constructed within the last five years. The proposed design will have a lightly sloped entrance located on the hard corner of Capitol and Cumberland and will be primarily glass. The remainder of the building's exterior will be a stone / brick combination with glass located higher up on the facade. Even though the window, rock, and brick arrangement may not be in character with most contributing structures in the neighborhood, it would compliment the River Cities Travel Center and emphasize its institutional use. The proposed roof design will have a clay the material and will be similar in pitch as nearby pitched roofs (River Cites Travel Center). The adjacent Paragon Building. The building is next door to the Paragon building, which may soon be considered a contributing structure in the district and is an example of Modern architecture. The overall massing and size of the proposed building could compliment the existing Paragon Building because of its limited height and smaller scale. The new building construction should not detract from the Paragon building. If a larger or taller building were built on this site it could overshadow adjacent buildings in the district. The original application indicated a six-foot high, 20-foot long wooden fence on the Cumberland Street side. The applicant has indicated that this fence will now be a wall matching the stone material of the building. The applicant has also indicated an extension of the wall will extend westward along Capitol Avenue screening part of the parking area. The applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on this site with a primary purpose of providing parking for police vehicles. Typically parking lots are to be located in the rear of buildings within the historic district. Since its orientation is on the hard corner the proposed parking area will use existing parking spaces, improvements could seem consistent with the guidelines. Furthermore, the proposed parking spaces are to be used by police officers and their visibility could have a positive influence on the surrounding neighborhood. A pole-mounted sign will be located on the corner of the building at the corner of Cumberland and Capitol. This pole- mounted sign may be illuminated at night and will identify its civic use. Since this project is located at the edge of the district and in an area of predominately modern construction, this sign should not have a negative affect on the district's character. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. ITEM NO. A. (CONT.): Southeast corner of Cumberland Street and Capitol Avenue STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application as filed pending approval by the Planning Commission on September 29, 2005 and October 13, 2005; and obtaining all necessary permits relevant to the placement of the sign. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: September 1, 2005. The applicant has requested a deferral to the October 6, 2005 Historic District Commission Hearing. Staff supports this request. Commissioner Serebrov made a motion to defer the item to the October 6, hearing. Commissioner Walls seconded. The motion carried 4 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Tim Heiple, representing the applicant noted the different applications that are connected with the substation. He then made a presentation concerning the new substation. It will be a 1500 square foot building and will be manned for extended hours. The building is on the property line on the north and west side. A cut stone will be on the front of the building and the roof may be slate tile, instead of clay tile, based on cost. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about screening of the property. Mr. Heiple noted that there would be a 6 -foot tall wall on both sides to screen parking and storage areas. Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the height of the wall at the Travel Center. Mr. Heiple responded that it was about 4 -5 feet tall. Police Chief Stewart Thomas, of the Little Rock Police Department commented that he felt the design was positive. There were no persons present for public comment and no additional commissioner questions. A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters. Commissioner Job Serebrov seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Mr. Thomas commented that the substation would allow for more foot patrols for a larger area from I-30 to MacArthur Park. 4 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: October 6, 2005 APPLICANT: Charles Witsell ADDRESS: 1011 S. Scott Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Install handrail. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1011 S Scott Street. The 1988 architectural survey identifies this building as a "Contributing" structure to the district. It is considered Queen Anne Residence and was constructed in c 1880. The Queen Anne style was popularized in the late 19th century and featured an asymmetrical floor plan with extensive exterior detailing, including various building materials, textures, and colors. Exterior wall surfaces were often rich mixtures of brick, wood, stone, and wood shingles cut in various patterns. Large wraparound porches with milled trim — columns, brackets, balusters, and fretwork —are usually present on the main facade. Gables include decorative verge boards and other trim. This home has numerous elements of the Queen Anne style including the asymmetrical floor plan, and decorative verge boards. The property at 1011 S Scott Street. ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1011 S Scott Street ANALYSIS: The applicant is currently undergoing restoration of the home and will be doing work to install a railing on the porch, and a handrail along side the steps. Pictorial evidence in the 1978 Architectural Survey indicates that a railing were originally located on the front porch. The applicant has supplied a detailed plan indicating the addition of railings, and latticework to the exterior of the home. The porch balusters to be used are 3/4 inch thick White Poplar and are copied from a 19`h Century Builders Materials catalog. These balusters will be painted to match the house. The design guidelines indicate that new construction and elements should be able to be differentiated from the original building. In this case the applicant is restoring elements original to the Queen Anne Style. The proposed porch balustrade handrail will be redwood, 2 inches high by 4 inches wide. This design is also from the previously mentioned handbook. The footrail are 1 inch by 4 inch and beveled so they shed water. Additionally the applicant has indicated that lattice panels will be installed over openings in the foundation. These will be attached to blocking that is attached to the brick. (See applicant provided exhibits for additional design details.) Additionally staff has checked to see if residential building codes require the presence of the railing. Since the elevation difference between the porch and ground is less than 30 inches staff feels that any special requirements may not be warranted. Staff's opinion on this matter does not exempt the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits or waivers. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as filed. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Kay Tatum stated for the record that she lives across the street from the applicant. Chair Carolyn Newbern asked if she had any financial interest in the application. Her answer was no. Charles Witsell, the applicant, made a presentation to the committee. He is adding a handrail to the front porch of the house and latticework under the porch as screening. The codes state that no handrail is necessary, so the historic height of the handrail is not a factor. He continued that the house was a duplex and they had converted half of the house into an artist studio. The restored the exterior in about 1991 or 1992 and received their COA at that time. 2 ITEM NO. One (CONT.): 1011 S Scott Street Adding the balustrade will add character to the structure, stated Mr. Witsell. The style proposed is a vernacular style, not a "high" style. He showed a photo of the house with lots of trim on the bargeboards, which would lead to believing that there was an accompanying decorative railing on the porch. He then showed the commission the profile for the flat band sawn railing that was proposed. A small discussion followed. There were no persons present for public comment and no additional commissioner questions. A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Wesley Walls. Commissioner Kay Tatum seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 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: October 6, 2005 APPLICANT: Frieda Tirado ADDRESS: 504 East 6th Street, Little Dock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Enclose a wrought iron enclosure on the south entrance. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 504 East 6th Street. The property's legal description is "Part of Trapnall Block in Stevenson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas: described as: Beginning on the North line east of 6th Street at a point which is 260 feet West of the centerline of Sherman Street; run thence West on the said North line of East 6`h Street a distance of 60 feet; then North at right angles 124 feet; thence East at right angles 60 feet; then South 124 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT a strip off the east side 1 1/2 feet The property at 504 East 6th Street. wide." The building is a c 1920's Craftsman style apartment house and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style became the most common architectural style in America in the early part of the 20th century and often coupled with the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized by irregular plans with low-pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers. Windows are double hung-sash with six vertical lights in the top sash and a single light bottom sash. In many examples, rafter ends and knee braces are visible below. 1 ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street This building has been involved in previous COA applications which has resulted in the demolition of an accessory building, construction of a paved parking area, reconstruction of a porch overhang, removal of inappropriate window shutters, and the painting of the exterior. This application is to allow for the addition of an iron enclosure over the front entranceway of the building to provide for added security. ANALYSIS: The design guidelines list several items that are relevant to this case. Most notably are the door design guidelines. Historically the Design Guidelines have always viewed the primary facade as being the most important element of the structure. Presently the front entrance is set back in the building four feet and covered with a portico. The inner door has five vertical lights and a three light transom. The design guidelines have specific guidelines relating to the installation of security doors. stating that security doors "should not be located on the primary facades" and should be "full-view, without ornate or decorative grill work." Additionally graphics indicate examples of acceptable and unacceptable security door designs. NO NO YES Storm and security dears should not obscure or conceal the entrance. Excerpt from the Design Guidelines While this is not a security door there are commonalities. This iron enclosure obscures the front door and architectural features, as does a bad storm or security door. The applicant has indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be 5 feet wide by 9 feet tall. It will be divided into two "sections," one on the top (2 feet by 5 feet), which will have a half circle ornamental iron pattern, and the bottom (7 feet by 5 feet), which will have a vertical pattern of ornamental iron bars. These bars our 1/2 inch in diameter. The applicant has indicated that the door will be model # 13-155-3 and made by King Architectural Metals. The proposed iron design does not reflect any of the architectural features of the door or transoms. It is a totally foreign design element being introduced to a contributing structure. 2 TEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street The round sunburst does not match the transom, the proposed iron gate is a double hung door that does not match the existing single door behind. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be located flush with the current entryway opening creating a non - weather resistant entranceway at the front entry. Craftsman construction styles on buildings of moderate means were based off of simplicity and typically did not feature separate or elaborate entryways. Since the iron enclosure will be located flush with the front facade, it will be visible from multiple angles on East 6th Street. The proposed iron enclosure will obscure the front door and entranceway. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application because it will obscure the entranceway, the front door, and is not in character with adjacent Craftsman apartment buildings. Existin g front door. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Commissioner Marshall Peters stated that he had a conflict of interest in this item and would recuse himself. John Jerrard, representing the applicant, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the main entrance for the complex is on the west side. The front door (the one facing south) enters into one apartment only. People stay there on stormy nights. The enclosure would prohibit sleeping and ringing of the doorbells. He continued to state that he wanted to make the design light and open. Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the materials. Mr. Jerrard stated that it was iron, with five inch spacing of the vertical bars. There were no persons there for public comment. 3 TEM NO. Two (CONT.): 504 East 6th Street Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she thought that the enclosure was not compatible. She asked if there were other enclosures. Mr. Jerrard answered that regular security doors would not solve the problem. The solution that they have proposed does not fit the definition of a security door. Commissioner Job Serebrov stated that there was a problem and that he could sympathize with the problem. Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded the position stated by Commissioner Serebrov. He was concerned that the design of the doors does not match the "Craftsman" building, but continued that the portico on the front was not a craftsman detail. He continued that this crosses the border form storm door to bars on windows. Commissioner Carolyn Newbern pointed to the graphics included in the agenda in the analysis section. She stated that they conflict with the design and asked where it was to be installed. Mr. Jerrard stated that it would be installed behind the columns six inches back from the front of the brick. Commissioner Walls asked where the door was in relation to the enclosure. Mr. Jerrard answered that the door sits back four and one half feet. Commissioner Newbern asked how wide the enclosure was. Mr.. Jerrard answered about five feet. Commissioner Walls asked if the door would be used. Mr. Jerrard commented that it would probably not. Commissioner Tatum asked if it had to be operable for fire code issues. Mr. Jerrard answered no. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an operable doorbell. Frida Tirado, owner of the project, interjected that the people will sleep and sit there. Commissioner Newbern asked if other options were explored, for example full view? Mr. Jerrard stated that they have not explored those options. Commissioner Walls asked what was driving the sunburst design. Mr. Jerrard stated that it gave the entrance some flair. Commissioner Walls continued to ask the spacing of the bars. Mr. Jerrard answered that it is five inches. Commissioner Walls wondered if the bars could be further apart and still meet code. Commissioner Serebrov stated that the cross bars will discourage vagrants. Commissioner Newbern stated that the design does not relate in any way to the door. Mr. Jerrard stated that he does not know of any door that would relate. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an iron fence in front of the site. The answer was no. There was no additional public comment made ( Frida Tirado is an owner of the project). Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would like a simpler design. Staff Brian Minyard interjected that the bylaws state that an application can be deferred to a later agenda and that would give the applicant time to resubmit revised drawings. 4 Commissioner Walls stated that there was a solution to the problem but this was not it. The applicant asked the committee to defer his application in order to resubmit revised drawings. A motion to defer the application until the November 11, 2005 agenda to revise the drawings was made by Commissioner Serebrov. Commissioner Walls seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal. Commissioner Peters stated for the record that he recused because of financial dealings with the applicant. 5 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. Three. DATE: October 6, 2005 APPLICANT: Little Rock Parks and Recreation, Bob Callans ADDRESS: 503 East 9th Street, Little Rock, AR 72202 COA REQUEST: Construct a memorial honoring those whose served in the Korean War PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at MacArthur Park in the MacArthur Park Historic District. The application area is a small portion of the park that is set back over 300 feet from both McMath Avenue and East 9th Street. ANALYSIS: The applicant has indicated that this will be a memorial honoring Americans who served in the Korean War and provide education about the war to visitors. The plaza will also provide a comfortable place for quiet reflection. The design guidelines do not specifically indicate any specific details when it comes to the construction of new memorials. Historically, memorials have been erected in numerous locations around the country to memorialize one event or another and this event would be no different. Memorials often times gain historical significance in the Proposed location of the Korean War Memorial 1 ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial future because of their meaning and how they commemorate the past. At the present time MacArthur Park is home to numerous memorials predominantly located on the south and east sides of the complex. These memorials don't necessarily detract from the architectural significance of the MacArthur Park Military Museum because their individual locations do not obstruct its views from the north, east, or west. The applicant has indicated that this monument will be located north-northeast of the Arsenal building adjacent to an existing grove of trees. The applicant has indicated that the memorial will have a circle -like footprint approximately 60 feet in diameter. Within this footprint there will be a bridge traversing a faux water feature surrounded by an arbor. The applicant has indicated that they intend for the arbor's colLUnns to match columns on the nearby Arsenal building. The memorial will feature brick rumbled pavers and a wall of names that will be constructed out of granite. The applicant has also indicated that benches at seating areas will be located in the nearby area in order to facilitate visitors. Staff believes that this memorial will complement the other memorials in the area and increase the civic value of the park. Staff also feels that the construction of the memorial will not detract from the nearby Arsenal building or the character of the historic district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project as filed with the following condition: If the scope of the project changes drastically they revisit with staff to see if an additional appearance before the Commission is needed. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005 Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. The area of impact was defined previously and those properties were notified. Charles Bloom, HDC Staff, made a presentation to the commission. Bob Callans, representing the applicant, stated that the location had moved and the size was reduced to sixty feet in diameter. This project is in conjunction with a Sister City in Korea. He went on to discuss the octagonal shape of the arbor, the bridge in the center of the design that is symbolic of the bridge of freedom. It will contain a listing or the Arkansans killed in action as well as sponsorships and organizations that support the project. The arbor is for shade of the reflection area. The paint color will be the same as the paint color on the porch of the arsenal. Mr. Callans continued that the plants used would be plants that are common to Korea and Arkansas. The memorial bands in the center symbolize the 38th parallel. The flagpoles will be of the same height as opposed to as shown on the model. 2 ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial Commissioner Newbern asked of there were any present to make public comment. Doyle Herndon stated that he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked about the faux water feature. Mr. Callans stated that the sunken area would have a drain to a low area off site but within the park. The sunken area will have glazed tile on the bottom. Commissioner Peters continued and asked where the plaque wall was located. Mr. Callans stated that the orientation was that the plaque walls would be on the northeast side of the memorial. Commissioner Peters asked if this was the last commission that the project had to appear before. Mr. Callans stated that this was the last commission. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lighting. Mr. Callans stated that there was uplighting of the flagpoles, arbor under the bridge and landscape lighting. Mr. Callans verified that landscape lighting was path lighting, and uplights on the plants. Commissioner Peters mentioned past discussions about light pollution. Commissioner Walls stated that this would not be a contributing structure and that the lighting would be okay. Commissioner Tatum asked about maintenance of the project. Mr. Callans stated that the foundation would set up an endowment for maintenance. They would also try to coordinate with the master gardeners. The maintenance will be for the memorial and surrounding areas. Commissioner Tatum asked about transients. Mr. Callans stated that the maintenance contract would clean up the site on a regular basis. Mr. Herndon stated that the city will do the maintenance or they will contract it out. Commissioner Peters made a comment about the crime at the Shell gas station at 9th and I- 30. Commissioner Serebrov asked about security issues. Mr. Herndon answered that the police presence is increasing in the area. Mr. Serebrov commented about the possibility of signs "at your own risk ". Commissioner Newbern asked of the height of the plaque wall. Mr. Callans stated it was ten foot high and would have granite on the front and brick on the back. Commissioner Serebrov asked about the color of the brick. Mr. Callans said it would be similar to the arsenal. He also continued that the arbor would be made of a composite material like the library has. The supports would be aluminum. Mr. Callans continued that there would be a ten -foot clearance for the arbor, maybe an eleven and one -half foot clearance Boyd Maher, of AHPP, asked if it obscured the Arsenal Building. Mr. Callans stated that it would not obscure more than the trees that are already there. Commissioner Walls stated that it probably would not obscure. Mr. Maher reminded the commission that this was an important building in the district. 3 ITEM NO. Three (CONT.): 503 E 9th / Korean War Memorial There was a question about a blank page in the agenda. Brian Minyard, Staff, read aloud the missing page. It was the second sheet of the cover letter to the commission. A motion to approve as submitted with staff recommendations was made by Commissioner Peters. Commissioner Serebrov seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 IV. Other Matters a. USPS Presentation Richard Taylor of the United States Postal Service made a presentation to the commission about renovations to the exterior screen wall on the western half of their property. The wall will be cleaned and sealed to remove the minerals that have stained the wall and prevent it from further leaching. The original design did not waterproof the top of the wall; therefore water has been seeping into the center of the wall. The proposal is to remove the precast coping and place a metal cap on top of all sections of the wall. This will be a pre - finished steel of a slate color. It will be compatible with the building and weathered wrought iron. It will simplify the walls look. They will also clean the brick on the building. b. Enforcement Update 504 East Sixth Street: Caroline Apartment There is not evidence that the applicant removed that item from the application. There was an x drawn thorough the painting item on the application but was not initialed by the applicant and staff. This action is to be dismissed. All other items remained the same. Unsure 1419 Commerce St Debra Weldon stated that the building permit process should be used to enforce this item. The stop work order is based on the building permit. Staff Bloom asked if the owner walked away sand did not do any more construction, how would we enforce on that? Mr. Bloom stated that it had been dormant with no construction since early 2005. Ms Weldon said that she would send an email to Mr. Minyard outlining the points to include in a letter to the applicant. A new building permit to replace the expired building permit will trigger a COA to be filed with this committee. Mr. Minyard stated that a letter would be sent to the owner. Commissioner Peters asked for a date to be included on the enforcement issues to show how long each had been under enforcement. 420 East Ninth Street A letter had been sent to the owner stating that a COA needed to be filed for the air - conditioner units. The letter stated that the previous application had been withdrawn and they need to be re-filed. The property sign has been removed at this time. 1301 Cumberland: 1 A discussion ensued about enforcing this case and the commission considered this to be the priority case to enforce. A motion was made to reinforce the motion made at the last meeting to enforce on this item. 501 East Seventh Street The old gates have been removed. Several letters have been sent to the owner and the contents of the letters were discussed. Commissioner Serebrov asked if a letter from the attorneys' office would be better. Commissioner Peters asked a copy of the letter be sent to the real estate commission office. Staff said that the letters were sent regular mail, not certified mail since we did not have a budget for the HDC. Boyd Maher stated that his office got a call for some changes at 904 Rock Street for artificial siding and windows. Staff stated that they would go by and investigate the item. c. Design Guidelines Discussion Commissioner Walls has done lots of drawings, Mr. Bloom has done formatting, and progress has been done. Mr. Minyard will be working on this. Chairman Newbern mentioned some items that may have not been included in the last draft. Those items will be addressed in the next draft, Mr. Minyard stated. d. Staff Organization Update Charles Bloom stated that he had taken a position with the City of Laramie, Wyoming effective mid October. Brian Minyard discussed optional meeting dates for the commission and the commission directed him to pursue the first or second Mondays of each month at 5:00 for the hearing dates. A discussion arose about subsequent emails and public meeting announcements. Meetings should be set up by staff at the request of the Chair. A commissioner may ask Staff to ask the Chair to call a meeting. Public notice required two hours notice of two or more commissioners meeting in one location. Those notices must go to Scott Carter in public information. All information to be distributed to the commission should go to staff and then be distributed to the commission distribution list. Information sent to the commission is okay, asking questions and soliciting response from the commissioners is not. For your consideration email to be discussed at a later publicized meeting is okay. Commissioners may always ask questions of Staff and request tasks. Chair Carolyn Newbern bestowed the "Arkansas Traveler" certificate to Charles Bloom. 2 Mr. Minyard suggested that the Historic District hearing be switched to a different date so that it did not conflict with the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, River Market, Board of Directors, etc. The first, second and third Mondays are suggested. The calendar should be set of the upcoming year by the end of the year. No commissioners stated that Mondays were impossible. Boyd Maher stated that no other commissions meet on Mondays. Mr. Minyard went through the days of the week and the possibilities of each. It was discussed that the second Monday of the week would probably be the best. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned. Z//- '�V5- Approved Date 3