Loading...
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