The Design Review Committee met on September 22, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting addressed three applications under the Arts District Redevelopment Area Committee: a signage application, a new build proposal, and a pause work order appeal. The committee approved the signage request, tabled the new build application pending resolution of inconsistencies, and tabled the appeal until complete, consistent drawings are submitted.
Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and call this design review committee meeting to order. We have three applications in the downtown or in the arts district area. The first that we'll see is 1407 Howard by Casey Spivey. It's a signage application. If you would come up, state your name and explain the project. Hold it down. There we go. KC Spivy, and this is just a rebranding of 1407 Howard. Same sign, same size, just uh an overlay over the current sign. We're not moving it, we're not making it bigger, not smaller, not adding lights or anything to it. Just the rebrand and more in tune with the historic side of things. I'd like to make a motion to approve the signage application for 1407 Howard. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. With that I've got a release for you that you can bring to permits. Uh and yeah. The next we will see is 605, 607 Washington. Uh if you could state your name, your business with the project. Isaac Warren are presenting Lamar Architecture and Design. Then if you'd like to tell us about it. Uh it'll be the design of two duplexes. We are seeking approval for the project so that the client could purchase the property, and then they will hire us for full services to design the building in its entirety. And I have the picture, the updated rendering pulled up. Um those are that's consistent with um setbacks that were required for the 36-foot lot. Um then we also have elevations at you see those. Do we have a site plan that matches the I'd like to make sure that the houses are slid to match the existing facade of the street. Do you think that uh your client would be interested in uh bringing the facades up so that it's consistent with like the rest of the homes on Washington? Um in the rendering it shows that they're pretty close. Um but then in the site plan it's set back some more. Yeah, they're they have no issue moving it forward more because I would give more um options to do different parking designs in the back. I know the the smaller site, Joel Wigan was saying we'd have to double stack the parking in order to fit cars back there. We can't do four across, so I think that'll be more convenient for the client. I see no issue. The fabric of the neighborhood around the parcels around. So I think asking for the for the frontage uh setback to be consistent with the houses on that block face. That's a consistent viewpoint with the design review guidelines. Is that a standard setback that the rest of the houses are currently at, or we're just matching what's existing? This would be a match in existing. Um, that part of the town was built in the 1800s when there was no zoning requirements per se back in that day. So um, you know, this area is a little bit unique, the arts district area, so um, you know, it's not like when you're building in a subdivision and and you have control over every single lot. So it's it's a unique situation down in the arts district. Understood. Um on the 26-foot white house. Are there two doors on front on on the front or one door on the front? The r there would be two doors on the front. The rendering does not reflect that. Okay. Or that's the intention. The client was hoping for two duplexes, did not expect that the site plan would have these struggles with a smaller property on the left and a larger property on the right.