The Historic District Commission is nearing the end of a process to review guidelines and procedures for the commission. At the June 1 meeting, commissioners agreed to a revised set of procedures, and came closer to approving new guidelines.
City Historic Preservation Officer Kylee Hevrdejs had sent packets to commissioners in advance of the meeting. The commission had already discussed some of the changes, recommended by the State Preservation Office and the Lakota Group, a contractor hired by the city. Other proposed changes were marked in red in the draft given to commissioners.
Hevrdejs said most of the public comment she received during a review of guidelines had more to do with commission procedures than the actual guidelines.
“We can print out 100 pages of changes, but if we don’t have code enforcement, all of this is for naught,” commissioner Marty Cogan said. She read a list of violations around town, and asked, “Why spend money on guidelines if they’re not followed and there are no repercussions?” Hevrdejs reminded her that code enforcement lies outside the powers of the HDC.
Hevrdejs suggested some big changes in procedure. City residents would not even have to apply for routine maintenance, or signs that meet city requirements. Major remodels and demolitions would still come before the commission, but most projects would receive administrative approval. People could still call the office for advice.
The provision for signs would have significant impact, Hevrdejs said. Applicants could receive immediate administrative approval without waiting two weeks for commission approval.
Hevrdejs also floated a question about the issue of contributing buildings. Some commissioners have argued that any building over 50 years old should be considered historical, but Hevrdejs suggested a different standard. She said the historic “period of significance” in Eureka Springs ended in 1955. “We might look at that again in a new survey,” she said, “but that should be the end of the properties we review.” Essentially, the historic district would have both physical and temporal boundaries. “It doesn’t make sense to hold a mid-century house to the same standards as a true Victorian,” she said.
All approved the revised procedures. Two commissioners absent from the meeting had received the material and had an opportunity to comment on it. Hevrdejs also reminded everyone they could continue to change this “living document.”
In other business:
- Hevrdejs has sent a second draft of the guideline revisions to commissioners, describing the revised document as “a fantastic tool for the commission and the community.”
- Commissioners approved an application to build a limestone retaining wall at 34 N. Main St. for Jason and Lorrie Bridges. The building dates to 1910 but is considered non-contributing. In her advance analysis, Hevrdejs noted the building has been “highly altered,” and the design of the proposed wall would be appropriate. Contractor Dan Halverson asked if he could place a stone in the wall with an inlaid design. He had done something similar with a stone at the Peabody House, incorporating a carved stone into a wall. He promised that any such installation would be “tasteful,” and said the addition to the wall would be an accent piece, not a distraction. Hevrdejs said nothing in commission guidelines would prevent it, and all agreed.
- At 223 Spring St., Michael and Kelly Ludwig received approval for a new metal fence, to match an adjacent fence. The application also included two welded steel staircases, one of which would replace an existing wooden staircase. A deck 17×11 feet, and another 12×8 feet, were approved. Hevrdejs said one of the two decks is not at the rear of the house, in keeping with guidelines, but it will be largely shielded from view.
- Vice-chair Dee Bright presided in the absence of Steve Holifield.
The HDC will next meet at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15. Level III applications were due June 2, and other levels were due June 8.