HDC_05 11 2015Page 1 of 16
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, May 11, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being seven (7) in number.
Members Present: Toni Johnson
BJ Bowen
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Walter Malone
Citizens Present: Chris East
Dan Fowler
Eric Nelson
II. Approval of Minutes
There was a discussion between Commissioner Page Wilson and Staff on what his statement
was on the issue of Tuck-pointing as a COC versus a COA. Commissioner Wilson wanted to
change his statement from “should comply with all state and city ordinances” to “follow best
practices”. It was noted that it would become part of the minutes for the May 11, 2015 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey to approve the minutes of April 13, 2015
as submitted. Commissioner Wilson seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 7
ayes and 0 absent.
Notice requirements were met on 507 Rock Street application to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 16
DATE: May 11, 2015
APPLICANT: Chris Moses, Moses Tucker
ADDRESS: 507 Rock Street
COA REQUEST: Infill Townhouses
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
In the 1897 Sanborn maps, the structure at 507/509 was
a one story duplex. 515 and 521 Rock Street are present.
The structure at 501 Rock was a one story home.
Sometime between 1913 and 1939, the duplex at
505/507 was replaced with a one story Clinic. The house
at 501 had been replaced with the apartments that are
there today and the apartments at 509 had been built. In
1950, the buildings were as they were in 1939. The
building was demolished sometime between 1950 and
1981.
This application is for the Infill Townhouses at 507/509
and fencing of the common parking lot shared by it and
401 East Capitol Avenue. The proposed project will
feature two 1380 sf unit townhouses.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
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. One.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 16
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure,
including stone walls, fences, light
fixtures, steps, and paving or
other appurtenant fixtures, shall
be erected, altered, restored,
moved, or demolished within an
historic district until after an
application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior
architectural features has been
submitted to and approved by the
historic district commission. The
municipality or county shall
require a certificate of
appropriateness to be issued by
the commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit or
other permit granted for purposes
of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
Location of Proposed Building
Page 4 of 16
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 23-120. – General Criteria
(f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the
existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not
be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
…related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
…related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10)
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt,
the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although
they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic
styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new
building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration,
such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of
details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional
for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary
Page 5 of 16
structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
• Architectural style
• General design
• General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
• Siting
• Height
• Proportion
• Rhythm
• Roof area
• Entrance area
• Wall areas
Page 6 of 16
• Detailing
• Facade
• Scale
• Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
This project is of a contemporary style of architecture.
GENERAL DESIGN
The two townhouses are slightly offset from each other with the southern unit being set farther
away from Rock Street. It features first and second floor porches across the entirety of the
building. The roof appears flat from Rock Street with parapets on three sides of the building.
The front porch roof on the second floor is flat and mimics the wide overhangs on the two
adjacent buildings. The building features HardiePlank lap siding, 6” reveal with mitered corners.
The foundation is of brick and the porches concrete. The porches feature painted steel columns
as support posts.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES
The windows will be Pella Architect series metal clad wood double hung windows. These will
be one over one windows with no dividing mullions. The information provided by the website in
the packet show muntins, but there are not any specified. The cladding will be in a “classic
White” in color. Window sizes vary from 1’-’9 x 5’-11”h, 3’-1” x 3’-11”h, 3’-1” x 5’-11”h, 4’-’0 x 5’-
11”h, and 2’-1” x 7’-0”.
Perspective of Proposed building from Rock Street
Page 7 of 16
The doors are Pella Architect “European” series metal clad wood door that feature one large
pane of glass over a solid bottom panel.
Lighting will be 6” aperture can lights in the upper and lower porches. The can lights will be
white and hidden in the soffit above. There will be one light sconce by the rear door of an 11”
traditional incandescent metal finish utility light with frosted glass.
Door detail Can light for porch ceilings Sconce by door
There will be gutters and downspouts on the eastern (rear) elevation. Gutters will be 6” and the
downspouts will be 4”. The gutters and downspouts will be painted white to match the building
trim. The roof over the front porches will not have gutters on them.
The mechanical systems will be a residential split system. The condensing units will be on the
roof, hidden behind the front porch upper roof parapet and will not be visible from Rock Street.
There will be a fence on the site which continues to the existing parking to the east. The fence
will be 36” high Ameristar montage plus Classic Style fencing on Rock Street and Capitol
Avenue. See report page 15 for elevations of the fence in relation to the height of the structure.
The fencing on the alley and the property line will be 72” tall. The vehicle gates will have
automatic operators on the two swing gates and one sliding gate. The personal gate to the
north will be manually operated. The guidelines state that fences should be 36” in the front
yards and convert to a 6’ fence halfway back along the building. The driveway gate on the south
side of the building could be installed at 6’ since it is near the back of the building. The personal
gate at the north of the building would need to be kept at 36”. The slide gate operator will be
visible from Capitol Avenue, but both of the swing gate operators will be marginally visible from
the street. The fence height along the alley could be reduced to 36” for the gate and that
section of the fence between the gate and Capitol Avenue in response to the front yard fences
should be 36” tall.
Page 8 of 16
The house numbers
will be brushed
aluminum cast letters
as indicated on the
elevations.
The handrails on the
upper front porch will
be a painted steel
railing frame with
galvanized steel
cable rail. See
additional details on
handouts.
SITING
The front setback will be brought to the Rock Street property line to be in line with the building to
the north. The two townhouses are slightly offset from each other with the southern unit being
set farther to the east. There will be a new driveway south of the building to provide two parking
spaces for the townhouses. That parking will join the existing parking to the east that is
provided of the building on the corner. There will be a total of 14 parking for the two buildings,
one for each unit. From a setback perspective, the new structure with its varied setbacks will be
between the buildings on both sides of it.
HEIGHT
There are two brushed finish concrete steps up to the ground floor of the porch. There will not
be a handrail on the steps. The perspective shows one that has been deleted from the project.
The overall height of the projects is about 23 feet from the sidewalk level.
PROPORTION
The two story building will be built between two three story buildings. It has a similar but lesser
width than the two adjacent ones. Therefore, this building appears to have a more horizontality
to it.
RHYTHM
The rhythm of the building on the Rock Street façade on the second floor is in the use of
vertically oriented windows and doors that will be visible from the street. The first floor features
squared openings in the front and side facades. The ganged windows on the first floor mimic
the ganged windows on the adjacent buildings. The front porches mimic the use of the historic
front porches on the houses at the south end of the block.
Slide gate
operator
Swing gate
operator
Fence detail
House numbers
Page 9 of 16
ROOF AREA
The roof will be a single ply low slope Thermo Plastic Olefin, TPO, roof with the majority of the
roof sloping to the east draining into the gutters. The porch roofs will drain to the front and have
prefinished HardiePanel siding fascia.
ENTRANCE AREA
The entrance area feature porches across the total width of the units and rectangular opening
on the front and sides of the structure.
WALL AREAS
The exterior walls are 6” exposure smooth textured painted HardiePlank Lap siding. The inside
and outside corners will be mitered 45 degree angles. Surrounding the windows and door will
be a 4” smooth textured painted HardieTrim Boards. The James Hardie products will be painted
on-site.
The foundation of the building will be brick to match the existing building to the north. See
graphic next page.
DETAILING
The detailing of the building primarily lies in the miter joints of the lap siding at the corners and
the cable system handrail on the second floor. The implied cornice (second floor porch roof)
mimics the adjacent building’s larger cornices.
FAÇADE
The façade is stepped back on the southern side. With the second floor porch arrangement, the
setbacks are emphasized on the different floor and the different units.
HardiePlank Lap siding Miter detail
Page 10 of 16
SCALE
The overall scale of the building fits on the street.
The buildings on each side of the project are three
stories, while 515 Rock is a one-story and 521 Rock
is a two story.
MASSING
The proposed project will feature two 1380 sf unit
townhouses. The massing will be broken up with the
varying setbacks between the units and the varying
visual setbacks of the first and second floors.
The parking lot on the east side of the building will be
expanded in area and number of parking spaces. A
preliminary review of the project deemed that a
perimeter strip of landscaping along Capitol Avenue
and interior Island areas will need to be landscaped.
That landscaping plan will need to be submitted to the Landscape Specialist Plans Reviewer to
ensure compliance before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The report did not state what
the new surface of the parking lot is to be. The guidelines state that the surface should be
concrete if hard surfaced. The subdivision code required a hard surfaced parking lot.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one
phone call inquiring about this application of a neutral nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
2. Compliance with City Landscape Ordinance and appropriate buffer ordinances.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 11, 2015
Bran Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. There were no questions of Staff
concerning the application.
Chris East, Cromwell Architects, made a short presentation to the Commission. He stated that
the southern unit was set back to keep reference edge of building to the south. The roofs on the
adjacent buildings appear flat from the street and tie in with the flat roof on the proposed
structure. The building seeks to animate the street with the uses of front porches like the
buildings have on the southern edge of the block.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell commented that the building on the south has more
landscaped area than the proposed building. He commented that he would rather the building
be set farther back on the lot and break down some of the walls on the porches in a nod to
single family houses. Is the back yard more important than the front? Mr. East stated they were
trying to make a communal space in the rear. They would lose the opportunity for rear
development if the building was moved back. Commissioner Russell said that they could have
both a front and a rear yard.
Commissioner Russell asked about the brick base. He is in favor to contemporary design and
putting red brick base with horizontal siding may look strange. Mr. East said that he could
consider changing the base. Commissioner Russell suggested a struck joint masonry base.
Perspective Two of Rock Street
Page 11 of 16
Chair Toni Johnson asked about the setback and if it was the same on the building on the north
side? Mr. East said yes. Chair Johnson asked if there was going to be some shrubbery. Mr.
East said yes. Commissioner Russell said that open grass areas would be better that shrub
areas and suggested that the building be moved back a few feet.
Commissioner Page Wilson asked how far the proposed building across the street is going to
set from the property line. Commissioner Russell said that it sits almost on the property line but
it had no porches. Mr. East said that the proposed buildings porches were wide enough for
chairs and tables.
Commissioner Bowen asked how it would impact the rear area if the building was moved back.
Mr. East said that it would diminish the area and would lose either the fire pit or picnic area.
Commissioner Wilson asked about the setback. Mr. East said it was about one foot from the
from Rock Street property line on the northern unit and about three feet from the sidewalk. The
southern unit sets back about two additional feet. Commissioner Wilson asked about this item
going to the Planning Commission. Mr. Minyard said it was not going to the Planning
Commission, it was a by right use in UU zoning.
Commissioner Mark Brown stated that if you go around the corner on 6th Street, most of the
buildings are on the property line, and he was one of them. He would prefer to have three feet
of setback on his building, and thinks that all of the items could be fit in with the setback being
increased. He thinks a three foot setback is appropriate.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey appreciates the comments. He thinks they made an effort to
blend in to the area and they have a well-conceived plan.
Commissioner Russell asked how the massing and the scale and how it relates to the area. Mr.
East quoted the massing statement form the staff report. He also stated that the flat roof is
same as the adjacent buildings and has about the same width. The openings are similar in the
living and public spaces in the units as the existing structures.
Mr. Boaitey asked Mr. East if he wanted to comment on the fence questions that were brought
up in the staff report. Mr. East said that the fences on Rock and Capitol were planned to be 36”
tall and that a landscape plan was going to be submitted as required.
Chair Johnson asked that if the parking lot design changes will it still have 14 spaces or less
and the same size? Mr. East said yes. She continued and asked who was permitted to use the
BBQ and fire pit area. She was glad that they had put porches on the buildings. Mr. East said
that the residents of both building could use it and it provided more eyes on the street.
Commissioner Russell asked if the second floor roof extends past the property line on the west
side. Mr. East said the he would check. If it did, he said that he would ask for a franchise
permit on it or pull the roof back. Commissioner Russell said that he could pull the whole
building back instead.
There were no citizens to speak on the item.
Staff informed the commission that the motion should include the amendment to the application
and conditions. If three is not an amendment made on the roof overhang, Staff would sign off
on the decreasing of the roof overhang or it would go to the Franchise permit process.
Page 12 of 16
Chari Johnson asked the applicant if he wanted to amend his application. Mr. East amended his
application to change the foundation brick to a larger utility brick, king size 4” tall, no
specification on color.
Commissioner Boaitey clarified that the Commission was not designing their application for
them.
Mr. Minyard suggested that the Commission could leave the issue of the roof overhang to staff
and not make an amendment concerning that. Staff would either sign off on the design change
or they would get a franchise agreement or the roof. Mr. East agreed with that.
Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve the application as amended with staff
recommendations and Commissioner Bowen seconded. The motion was approved with 7 ayes,
and 0 noes.
Page 13 of 16
DATE: May 11, 2015
APPLICANT: Tony Curtis
ADDRESS: 603 E 15th and 520 E 15th
COA REQUEST: Relocation of house
This application will be deferred to the June 8, 2015
agenda because of lack of public notice in a timely
manner.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 11, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the
Commission that the notices had not been met on this
item and should be deferred. A motion was made by
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to defer to the June 8,
2015 meeting and was seconded by Commissioner
Jennifer Carman and the motion passed with a vote of
7 ayes and o noes.
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. Two.
Location of Project
Page 14 of 16
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
The update will be emailed to the commissioners after tonight’s meeting. The next meeting has
been moved to Thursday this week instead of Friday.
Enforcement issues
None were brought to the Commissions attention.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff did not write any COCs this month.
Guidelines Revision
Brian Minyard, Staff, asked the Commission to comment on items that they strongly agreed with
or strongly disagreed with on the Key Issues Report. All of the comments will be forwarded to
the consultant for inclusion into the draft guidelines. He continued that the consultant will be
making a presentation during the June meeting and that the final vote of the edits would be by
the Commission probably in July or August. He also said that he would bring other changes to
the Commission at the June meeting to be considered in the Guideline revision package.
On the reorganization of the document, Commissioner Jeremiah Russell agrees one hundred
percent.
Commissioner Russell does not believe that there should be a list of materials, either inclusive
or exclusive. Chair Toni Johnson asked if he thought there was a place for vinyl siding.
Commissioner Page Wilson said that he thought there was for new builds.
Chair Johnson stated that she wanted an explanation of the Guidelines. What do they mean to
the property owner? She noted diverse opinions by residents of what should go into their
neighborhood. She stated that she thought that she implemented the guidelines, but wanted
more input from the stakeholders. She also wanted to make sure that she was not harming the
national register designation. She wants more input form citizens.
Commissioner Russell clarified that the only action that would delist this neighborhood is the
demolition of contributing structures. Commissioner Wilson stated that the district is not in
danger of not being a district unless there is another tornado or massive fire. There was a
discussion on the percentages of contributing and vacant lots.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey noted that there were lots of folks at the last meeting and had
lots of input. He stressed he desired flexibility in the guidelines and that context should not be
so tight that individual cases could not be approved. The guidelines are good, we are just doing
a tweek.
Commissioner Jennifer Carmen spoke of comments outside the meeting last month. One lady
approached her and wanted her to preserve the character of the neighborhood, why they moved
here. The citizen expressed the desire to keep the district like a travel back in time.
Commissioner Carman stated that she liked all different types of architecture, but a lot of the
citizens did not feel that way, but the commission cannot please everybody.
Commissioner Wilson stated that he thought the citizens got confused on the word
contemporary. They were unique structures in their time. We are not going to set a set of rules
that would be imposed.
Page 15 of 16
Commissioner Carman spoke of the existing guidelines that discourage building replicas
because people do it poorly. But on some sites, a replica building is the appropriate thing to do
instead of contemporary. She asked the consultant to take out that language. She suggested
that with signage of the date of construction, it would remove the confusion of the citizenry.
Commissioner Wilson stated he was not opposed to replicas if done well. He is also not
opposed to replica lite. He encourages to get rid of the statements of Secretary of Interior
Standards (SOIS) #9 and 10 in the new infill section.
Chair Johnson asked the Commission to decide on a direction to go.
Commissioner Wilson said that a lot of things have been approved that are incompatible in the
district, including his projects.
On the Proposed Approach to the Guidelines on page 5 of the report, Commissioner Boaitey
commented that this gives the Commission a direction. Chair Johnson reiterated that she wants
to make sure that the residents of the area are heard. Commissioner Russell said that the
Commission should decide on a direction and go for it. Go with faux historic or a progressive
commission with new construction of its time. There is a lot of area in between. Commissioner
Wilson said of the report that it is trying to strike a balance. He is not happy with all of it. He is
trying to figure out context, high, moderate and low compatibility.
Commissioner Russell said that unless you have a predetermined list of materials and
architectural styles, all reviews will be subjective. He agreed that the last meeting was great for
input.
Commissioner Wilson asked if everyone was in agreement on taking out SOIS 9 and 10. Chair
Johnson said that she was not prepared to make a blanket statement like that for removal of the
standards. Commissioner Russell said that with the 11 criteria to judge, adding the SOIS
standards would be redundant. The SOIS Standards are much broader and open to
interpretation. Commissioner Wilson stated that the standards 9 and 10 are for existing
buildings for additions, garages, etc.
Commissioner Wilson stated the commission cannot decide what at shed roof was. He asked if
anyone would be willing to strike the roof graphic. Chair Johnson said that hopefully this revision
would clean this up. Commission Wilson said that they should have graphics that apply to all.
Commissioner Mark Brown said that he did not have a recollection of everything that has been
passed. He asked a question of the members if they were in favor of approved replicas.
Commissioner Carman said yes but Commissioner Russell was opposed because they are not
done well. If it was properly done, he would support it, but not in a hodgepodge of styles. Chair
Johnson commented that if a person made an application, that was a hodgepodge of styles,
how would you tell them no? Commissioner Russell responded with looking at mass and scale,
detail, etc. Commissioner Brown likes replicas if they are done well. Commissioner Russell is
not in favor of lists. Commissioner Carman says that our current guidelines discourage that, but
she wants to encourage replicas. Maybe signage would be required on replicas.
Commissioner Wilson stated that it gets confusing when talking about new construction when
judged against SOIS 9 and 10. Commissioner Carmen asked about including replicas in
appropriate locations. Commissioner Russell said that the replicas could be reviewed under the
Reconstruction Standards of the SOIS instead of the Rehabilitation Standards.
Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if the applicants ever meet with Staff ahead of the application.
If they were required to meet with Staff, it could improve the applications. Mr. Minyard stated
that on this currant application, Mr. East met with him two or three times before the application
was filed. He supports the pre - application conference. Commissioner Bowen thinks that a lot of
issues could be resolved before they come to the Commission. Mr. Minyard stated that if the
guidelines go to the context of high, moderated and low compatibility, it would definitely be
beneficial for the applicant to come in for a pre - application conference. He continued that if the
applicant wants to build a replica, maybe they use the SOTS for Reconstruction with highest
scrutiny.
Commissioner Wilson asked who decides what context is on each site, low moderate or high
compatibility. Mr. Minyard stated that it was not decided yet, but he had a theory on how it could
work. With the location map as shown on page 2 of the last COA item, the buildings would be
color coded for contributing and non - contributing. If there was a preponderance of blue
contributing structures, it would be reviewed under high compatibility. If there was a mix, it
would be reviewed under moderate compatibility. If there were many vacant lots and few
contributing structures, it would be reviewed under low compatibility. Staff would recommend
the level of scrutiny. It would still be the Commission vote that would be final.
A discussion on how to get more people attending the next meeting occurred next. It was noted
that QQA could send a notice out to their members. Commissioners Wilson and Russell spoke
of inviting the state chapter AIA to have input. Mr. Minyard said he would need to be given a
contact name.
Commissioner Carmen liked the idea of an online survey. Commissioner Boaitey asked if a tool
like Survey Monkey was out of the question. The request was to explain what the guidelines
mean to the property owners. What types of buildings do you want to see? Mr. Minyard stated
that he would send the first letter sent to the property owners for the commission to edit before it
gets sent out again. He gave them a deadline of two weeks before the meeting of when the
letters would be sent.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:40 p.m.
Attest:
(0
Date
Date
Page 16 of 16