Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2012-017 Replace Fence and Add Retainng Wall 09-10-2012DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: September 10, 2012 APPLICANT: Leonard & Benjia Hollinger ADDRESS: 420 E 11th COA REQUEST: Replace existing privacy fence and add retaining wall along 11 th Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 420 E 11 th. The property's legal description is "Lots 7, 8 and S 1/2 of 9, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house was constructed ca 1950. The 2006 survey form states: "This hipped roof version of the Modern Ranch style includes a classic revival porch and an attached carport." It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. In the December 2, 2009 State Review Board meeting, Additional Documentation was reviewed which was to change the period of significance through 1960 for the District. That was approved by the NIPS on January 21, 2010. 17iH _ -. _-16TH I Location of Project This application is to replace the existing privacy fence - and add a retaining wall along 11th Street. The fence will be installed in the current location as the existing, but will be taller with a lattice top. The retaining wall would be installed along 11th Street to level the yard to the higher level. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 14, 2010, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to replace his original windows with vinyl windows. On February 2, 1989, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to remove one story residence and construct new one story residence and rear guest house. Only the rear guest house was built of this plan. On June 23, 1988, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to demolish a structure. On October 26, 1981, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to erect an open carport canopy on the west side of the house. 1 of 10 s • • r 1 a n - i it ^l�•Y � xy�t}irk'• .• it - � �.. l: p, - • 1 • • 1 r I ! I • PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66 and 67 of the Guidelines, it states the following 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36") tall; pickets should be no wider than four inches (4') and set no farther apart than three inches (3"). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the house. 2of10 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. Chain -link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. FENCE: The proposed fence will feature a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence. The height of the fence will vary between 64" and 6-8" because of the slope of the land. The fence will start at the northeast corner of the house and extend northward to the property line. There will be a drive gate cut into the fence at the curb cut. This fence is very visible from the Commerce Street side. This fence is located in the rear yard, but has street visibility because of the corner lot. _ Research into fencing types in the 1950's have not been conclusive as to what the prevalent style of fence was with a ranch house. At the end of this report are some images from a Sunset Book on fences published in 1951. However, since it is uncertain what the prevalent style should be, it is safer to install a simpler fence. A replacement of the fence as is, would be in Staff's opinion, style neutral. This application will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance. Proposed fence RETAINING WALL: The proposed wall will be parallel with 11th Street on the property line and extend the entire length of the grass area. The grade behind the wall will be brought up to the top of the wall and have grass as the groundcover. The wall will be split faced block as shown in the photos on the next page. They will be in the plain gray color. The wall will be broken to accommodate steps up the slope from 11th Street. The wall will be tapered to fit the slope at the eastern and western end of the wall. Currently, the ground slopes 3of10 ups to a plateau, upon which the house sits. The following photo on the right represents what the wall will look like. The photo on the right show alternative colors available. The Guidelines state, as quoted above, that the addition of retaining walls is discouraged in the front yard. However, in circumstances, the walls are permitted when the materials match the materials of the building. That would imply a brick retaining wall or at the least, a block wall that matched the color of the brick. Also, if using block, the mortar could be dyed to be the same color as the block to disguise the nature of he block. There are not any retaining walls visible in the immediate vicinity of this application. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Install block retaining wall with block color that matches brick on house with grout that matches block. 2. Replace fence with same style fence that is currently there with an average height of up to 6' tall. 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: Auaust 13. 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, explained to the applicant that they were being offered a deferral because of only 4 commissioners present for this hearing. After approaching the podium, Mr. Leonard Hollinger, the applicant, decided that he would take the deferral offered to him. A motion was made to defer till the September 10, 2012 hearing by Commissioner BJ Bowen and was seconded by Commissioner Loretta Hendrix. The motion to defer was approved with 4 ayes and 3 absent (Vanlandingham, Wiedower and Ripley). 4of10 COMMISSION ACTION: September 1 D 2012 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and noted that the notices were met for this item. Staff did the notices for this item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked exactly where the wall did lie, where the property line lies, and the location of the fence and the height of the proposed fence. Mr. Minyard said that the Staff would verify where that wall would be before installation. He continued to explain about the fence setbacks and how that determines height. Mr. Leonard Hollinger stated that he has lived in the house since April 1981. The fence to be replaced is 20 years old. He continued that the yard is tough to mow with the slope on the 11th Street side. He would like to install the wall to make it more "elderly friendly". He said the wall would allow him to maintain his property for a longer period. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham commented that the applicant's yard was meticulously manicured. Commissioner Wiedower commented that with the proposed height of the fence with the lattice on the top, that the applicant was sacrificing some privacy with the new design. Mr. Hollinger stated that they were aware of that but still preferred the submitted design with the lattice. On the retaining wall, Commissioner Wiedower asked what happens at the corner. Mr. Hollinger stated that the wall will start six feet back from the Commerce Street sidewalk. Chairman Vanlandingham asked if the top of the wall will step down. Mr. Hollinger said that it would step down at the corner and at the alley. Mr. Hollinger continued that the wall will feature a 4" cap stone. He continued that the wall would be 42" tall at the most. Commissioner Ripley asked if he was keeping the two stairs from 11th Street. Mr. Hollinger said yes. Commissioner Ripley commented on the fence along the east side. Mr. Hollinger said that he was also adding a fence to match on the left of the property by the alley and the carport. Chairman Vanlandingham stated that the guest house is wonderful but is hard to see with the 6' fence. He continued that one of the reasons that the district has six foot fences is so the public can see things that are significant and he thinks that the guest house should be seen. Mr. Hollinger thinks that the guest house will still be seen with the new fence. Mr. Minyard stated that when the new sidewalk is poured, the new wall needs to sit on the applicant's side of the property line; otherwise a franchise permit would be needed to construct a wall on the city's right of way. Mr. Hollinger stated that the walk would be the same width as before. Commissioner Ripley asked if the sidewalk will be the footing for the new wall. Mr. Hollinger said yes and explained the built in footing to be poured with the new sidewalk. Commissioner Mark Brown said that the proposed fence appears to be the same height as the current one. Mr. Hollinger said that the new fence will be 4-6" taller. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked Commissioner Ripley if the foundation would be enough for the wall. Commissioner Ripley said that the detail of the wall is crucial, but it could work. He spoke of concern of the backfilling of the wall. Mr. Hollinger spoke of the deadmen that were sold with the wall and that they would be installed. Commissioner Wiedower went back to the fence issues and clarified that the lattice came out of the overall height of the fence. Mr. Hollinger stated he agreed and understood. 5of10 There were no citizens that spoke concerning the application. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Commissioner Wiedower seconding the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Johnson) and 1 recusal (Boaitey as a new commissioner.) 6of10 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCS HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street DISTRICT little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. Application Dale: 2. Date of Public Hearing: 13 — 12 at 5:00 p.m. 3. Address of Property: O E /l r-1:1 4. Legal Description of Property: L~ T q Ya OIL O R t j'r n/A L C r t o f L i TrL. E Rock 5. Property Owner (Printed Name, Address, Phone, Email): Ery rIi ¢ �+Ea'vQ Rn ILL L-/y rE+L if40 C /r= Lr'lTl-ERock SPA. 7 2a?, 5a1-372-243rL 5_01-9 1,VLf -c�cg 6. Owner's Agent: (Printed Name, Address, Phone, Email): 5 feL 5 i480-vE 7. Brief Project Description: REPLIPC CXl f:TiK;' ?Rl VIft rFvcf ANC G��yrRVar A< R� r�r.✓i v�- wAr.r. o�tr i/ rxE�r 8. Estimated Cost of Improvements: 1, eG. 000 9. Zoning Classification: Is the pro change a permitted use? Yes No 10. Signature of Owner or Agent:��.� f (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes during construction (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA, applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by She Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codas, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by lire Commission or staff. Responsibility for Identifying such codes, ordinances. 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: Date:_. Lion 7of10 Revised 6l2011 July 5, 2012 TO: LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FROM: BENJIA AND LEONARD HOLLINGER SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL We wish to replace the existing privacy fence facing Commerce Street due to age, wear and tear, In addition to the quality of privacy, (see the attached photography). We wish to replace the fence and add a lattice on top similar to the attached photographs. Also, we wish to erect a retaining wall along 11th Street to make the yard more elderly friendly and easier to maintain. The slope present a challenge when mowing. We wish to erect a retaining wall similar to the attached photographs. We have lived here since 1981 and wish to continue living here as long as we are able to properly maintain our privacy and the yard. We feel that the fence replacement and the retaining wall will allow us to remain In our home for many more years. Please consider our request and grant us a Certificate of Appropriateness. Benjia and Leonard Hollinger Cover Letter 8of10 HOW TO BUILD FENCES and GATES Cover of 1951 how to book on fences HOW TO BUILD FENCES AND GATES, A SUNSET BOOK (1951) $29.99 HOW TO BUILD FENCES AND GATES. A SUNSET BOOK. COPYRIGHT 1951, 1ST EDITION. SOFTCOVER. MEASURES 8.25X10.75". 96 PAGES. 225 ILLUSTRATIONS. LOADED WITH GORGEOUS PHOTOS OF MID CENTURY MODERN HOMES. PLENTY OF RETRO MODERN INSPIRATION FOR YOUR BACKYARD. INSIDE THE BOOK YOU WILL FIND DESIGNS BY: GARRETT ECKBO OF ECKBO ROYSTON & WILLIAMS, OSMUNDSON 4 STALEY, THOMAS CHURCH, DOUGLAS BAYLIS, LAWRENCE HALPRIN, PAUL LAZLO, LOCKWOOD DEFOREST, HENRY HILL, AND OTHERS. BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS BY fULIU5 SHULMAN, MORLEY BAER WILLIAM APLIN, AND ERNEST BRAUN. FEATURES: OUTDOOR LIVING, OUTDOOR ROOMS, BAMBOO FENCES, SLAT FENCES, PLASTIC PANELS, LOUVERS, GLASS WALLS, LOUVERED GATES, MINIMALIST GATES, REDWOOD GATES, SAGUARO CACTUS GATES CONTENTS: PICKETS, SLAT BOARD, SOLID PANELS, LOUVER, BOARD AND BOARD, LATTICE, RAIL, PLASTICS, GLASS, WIRE, CORRALS, POOL ENCLOSURES, HORIZONTAL FENCING, GATES, FENCES AND PLANTS, WIND TESTS, FENCE LAYOUT, MATERIALS, POST HOLES, CARE, LAWS AND MORE Description of book rAmt Your Fence ... what will it do for you? ............................... 6 Dressed Pickets ... neat and traditional .............................. 9 Slat ... formal grapemakex............................._,.,........_ I4 Rustic Pickets ... grapestakes and woven saplings .................... 17 Boartl... good design prevents bnxed-in elfe........ ................ M Solid Panel% ... Plywood, axhesl.ns, aluminum.......................... Z2 Louver ... handsome but expensive .................................. 34 Boardand-Bovril ... alternate to louvers ............................. 40 Basket Weas•e ... for interesting slmdcAv play. ............ 42 Lattice ... for either view or privacy ................... .....,........ 11 Rail.. . the pfaneera fence .......... .............................— 46 Corral Fences ... horses' well being comes filet ....................,.. S7 Plastic Screen ... coal light in the garden ............................ 55 Glass ... view without wind ......................................... 59 Wire .. , highly practical and economical ............................. G1 Gala .. , build well for wear and abuse ....... ....................., 66 Fence Plantings ... give color and accent ............................. 74 Wind Tests ... which fence iR best?... . ............. 75 Who Build% It? ... you. your neighbors.a coormctor?............ ..-.- 77 Fence Layout ... pion completely before building ..................... 78 Building Materials ... quality affects Fence lifespan.............:..... BO Preservatives ... protect posts against decay... .. .................. _.. &I Post Hales , .. how Co stake out, dig. S6 Erecting the Fence .. how to go about It... .............. ag Care and Repair . a springtime chore...... I ........................ 94 Fence Laws ... stay an the safe aide ................................. 95 Index from Book 9of10 +R 'A. .- Y' F,. .�. iarc .w Photos from book 10 of 10 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 1. DATE: May 13, 2013 APPLICANT: Leonard & Benjia Hollinger ADDRESS: 420E 11th COA REQUEST: Approval of Vinyl Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 420 E 11 th. The property's legal description is "Lots 7, 8 and S 1/2 of 9, Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The house was constructed ca 1950. The 2006 survey form states: "This hipped roof version of the Modern Ranch style includes a classic revival porch and an attached carport." It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. In the December 2, 2009 State Review Board meeting, Additional Documentation was reviewed to change the period of significance through 1960 for the District. That was approved by the NIPS on January 21, 2010. This application is an enforcement issue. The application w m ITH 14 ITTH - W ='ION Location of Project is to seek approval for a vinyl fence that was installed earlier this year after a COA was approved for a fence on September 10, 2012- PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 10, 2012, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger for fence replacement and construction of a retaining wall along 11th Street. On October 14, 2010, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to replace his original windows with vinyl windows. On February 2, 1989, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to remove one story residence and construct new one story residence and rear guest house. Only the rear guest house was built of this plan. On June 23, 1988, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to demolish a structure. On October 26, 1981, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to erect an open carport canopy on the west side of the house. � �• Y;'� ram'- .i,�,+: _ Existing view from southeast from Sept. 2012 Existing east elevation from Sept, 2012 i j rR y it +. 5� Sir ��.• +' ti r.. fly i k1jua i Existing condition of fence from Set 2012 Existin condition of fence from Sept. 2012 F yam" tir. - :� .. r_ Fence by carport on south side from April 2013 Fence along Commerce Street from April 2013 2of8 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 66 and 67 of the Guidelines, it states the following 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the house. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36') tall; pickets should be no wider than four inches (4") and set no farther apart than three inches (3"). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the house. 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. Chain -link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged i The reason that this application is back before the Commission is that the owner installed a fence that the Commission did not approve. Mr. Hollinger stated in the hearing of September 10, 2012 that he wanted to make his home more maintenance free. The photo he provided to the Staff with his application is at the right. It is of a 3of8 n wood fence with the lattice above. He interpreted this to mean that he could install a vinyl fence. However, the staff report states "a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence". Below is the text from the Staff report for the September 10, 2012 hearing: FENCE: The proposed fence will feature a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence. The height of the fence will vary between 6'4" and 6'-8" because of the slope of the land. The fence will start at the northeast corner of the house and extend northward to the property line. There will be a drive gate cut into the fence at the curb cut. This fence is very visible from the Commerce Street side. This fence is located in the rear yard, but has street visibility because of the corner lot. Research into fencing types in the 1950's have not been conclusive as to what the prevalent style of fence was with a ranch house. At the end of this report are some images from a Sunset Book on fences published in 1951. However, since it is uncertain what the prevalent style should be, it is safer to install a simpler fence. A replacement of the fence as is, would be in Staffs opinion, style neutral. This application will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence height variance. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: June 13 2013 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation of the item. He stated that this was an enforcement issue. He read from the staff report the last paragraph on page 3 of 6 of the staff report. He continued that he had the original photo from the September 2012 hearing if the Commission wanted to see it again. The one comment from the neighborhood was the original call that reported it to staff. Staff recommendation is denial on this application. He asked if there were any questions of Staff before the applicant came forward. Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked Staff how long the fence took to install. Mr. Minyard said that it took at least two days, but they would need to ask the applicant that question. Vice Chair Toni Johnson asked if the applicant got a copy of the staff report from September 10 before that meeting. She asked if the letter stated they had approval for a typical wood fence with lattice above. He stated that that was included in the Staff report and it did not say approval as it was only a staff report at that time. The photo that was submitted was of a wood fence. The recommendation was to approve a wood fence as submitted by photo. Vice Chair Johnson asked Staff if the applicant received any written communication after the vote was taken on September 10, 2012. Mr. Minyard said that he did. Mr. Minyard responded that they get two different things. He had in his file a letter from September 13, 2012 that was sent to inform the applicant of the vote count and that it passed. He also received his Certificate of Appropriateness. The text on the COA was "Project to be completed as amended and as approved by the Historic District Commission in the September 10, 2012 hearing." Vice Chair Johnson stated that he would know to go back to the staff report for that hearing for any explanation. 4of8 Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey wanted to clarify that the first Staff knew about this was when it was reported to Staff. He wanted to know if there was a lot of discussion between the informant and Staff. Mr. Minyard stated that the informant just wanted to confirm what had been approved by the Commission. The conversation was fairly short. Mr. Leonard Hollinger, of 420 East 11th Street, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He explained why the fence was built as it was. He asked that the Commission approve the fence as built. He said that there were several factors that were considered: privacy, maintenance free, and long lasting. He surveyed the District and did not find a fence that fulfilled the three factors above. He chose to install a vinyl fence that fit these three factors. He said that there are many wooden fences in the district but they would not meet the standards as set. He maintained that the fence blends with the house and guest house. He stated that he did not build the fence in defiance of the Commission but was under the impression that the long lasting maintenance free allowed him to go with a vinyl fence. Vice Chair Johnson asked why he submitted a photo of a wood fence in his original application. He said that he did not find any vinyl fences in the district. She then asked if he knew he was going to install a vinyl fence at the time of his original hearing. He stated "No". Commissioner Wiedower said that she was sorry that we are in this situation. She stated that she was worried about how a possible failure to communicate on the vinyl fence or a wood fence in the hearing could have happened. She said that it was never in her mind that they were talking about a vinyl fence. She remembered conversations on the height, the lattice on top, and other issues that night. The style is the same as the proposed wood fence, but the fence has problems following the guidelines. She stated that this fence was a problem for her. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that a reason that Mr. Hollinger did not find any vinyl fences within the district is that the word vinyl raises red flags in the hearing. And that is why he did not find any vinyl fences in the historical area. He commented that the Historic District Commission was in a tough spot because it is an expensive fence and the Historic District Commission could be deemed worthless if this fence was approved. Even though the Commission takes items on a case by case basis, he said that it would be difficult to not approve vinyl fences or any other material that was not appropriate in the future. Mr. Hollinger asked if Commissioner Ripley had looked at other wood fences. He commented that he had and he does not disagree on his motive on the maintenance issues. But the Commission is here for historically appropriate fences. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the fence has a lot of visibility being across from the Arts Center. Mr. Hollinger agreed and said that it complements the area. Commissioner Mark Brown related a personal experience with another commission on wood versus fiberglass columns. He had replaced wood columns that were rotting with fiberglass columns of the same style. The guidelines called for a similar material. He thought when they were painted, you would not tell the difference, but he was denied the use of the fiberglass columns. In the case of this fence, if the vinyl fence were painted, as his columns were, would it look like a wood fence? In his opinion, it would still look like a painted vinyl wood fence. The charge of the HDC is to protect historic nature of the neighborhood. 5 of 8 Mr. Hollinger stated that a half brick house doesn't really fit either. There was a discussion about how the motion was to be worded. Mr. Minyard stated that all motions were made in the affirmative, but if a Commissioner wanted to deny the application, simply vote no. A motion to approve as installed the vinyl fence at 420 E 11th Street as submitted was made by Commissioner Boaitey and it was seconded by Commissioner Brown. The motion was denied with 0 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent (Vanlandingham). Commissioner Ripley asked what his options at this point were. Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney's office, said that he could appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days. Commissioner Ripley said that he thought it went before the City Board. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission was quasi-judicial and repeated that it went to Circuit Court. Mr. Hollinger stated that he would win in court with a jury of his peers. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the motion included all or part of the fence that was along 11th Street. Mr. Minyard stated that he assumed that the motion "as installed" included the entire vinyl fence. Ms. Weldon agreed with Mr. Minyard and stated that the application did not specify a particular part of the fence, so therefore it included the entire fence. Mr. Hollinger asked that if he did nothing, what would happen. Ms. Weldon said that it would be an enforcement issue and that it would be taken to court. He asked on what authority the city would do that. Mr. Hollinger restated that he believed that he would win in court but understands that the Commission needs to save face. He did say that he would be willing to see if there was a way to get out of this situation. He apologized for putting the Commission in this position, but at the time he did not think he was putting the Commission in that situation. There was a discussion on who called in the complaint. Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not believe that he installed the fence maliciously. Commissioner Ripley concurred with Commissioner Wiedower. Ms. Weldon said that the exclusive remedy is to appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days. Vice Chair Johnson said that she was sorry about the situation but was glad that people were interested in maintaining their properties, but the Commission's charge was to follow the guidelines. Commissioner Wiedower was hopeful that the Commission could avoid this situation in the future. 6of8