Historic District Commission — Fayetteville, AR
Date: 2025-10-09
Time: 17:30

100 W. Rock St. Suite 246
 Fayetteville, AR 72701

 Historic District Commission Agenda
 Rock St. Meeting Room / Virtual Meeting Via Zoom
 Thursday, October 9, 2025
 5:30 PM


 Members
 Chair Christine Myres (Exp: 06/28)
 Vice Chair Cheri Coley (Exp: 06/27)
 Meredith Mahan (Exp: 06/26)
 Jennifer Didway (Exp: 06/27)
 Tommie Flowers Davis (Exp: 06/27)
 Mark Harper (Exp: 06/27)
 Karen Rorex (Exp: 06/28)

 City Staff
 Long Range and Historic Preservation Planner Kylee Cole
Long Range Planning and Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick
Historic District Commission October 9, 2025




Zoom Information

 Webinar ID: 840 2719 5015
 Registration Link: https://fayetteville-
 ar.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_f7HGmAuqT-ipZ__Xsp5EzQ


Call to Order

Roll Call

Minutes
 Approval of the September 11, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes.


Unfinished Business

 Downtown Design Overlay District Review


New Business

 Oak Grove Local Historic District Petition & Report


Announcements

Adjournment




City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2

Meeting of the Historic District Commission
 September 11, 2025, 5:30 PM
 City Hall Room 101 & Zoom

NOTE: The September 11, 2025 Historic District Commission meeting was held in person
and online, with commissioners attending in person and online. Staff were present in
person.

Members: Chair Christine Myres, Meredith Mahan, Mark Harper, Cheri Coley, Jennifer Didway,
Tommie Flowers Davis, and Karen Rorex

City Staff: Kylee Cole – Long Range & Preservation Planner; Britin Bostick - Long Range
Planning & Special Projects Manager

 Call to Order: 5:30 PM

 In Attendance: Chair Christine Myres, Cheri Coley, Jennifer Didway, Mark Harper, Karen
 Rorex, Kylee Cole, and Britin Bostick. Commissioners Flowers Davis and Mahan were absent
 at the time of roll call.

 Approval of Minutes from the August 14, 2025 Meeting: Motion to accept by
 Commissioner Coley, second by Commissioner Harper. Motion passed unanimously by voice
 vote.

 Unfinished Business:
 1. Downtown Design Overlay District Review: Chair Myres introduced the item and
 noted Cole had provided a marked up and highlighted version. Cole clarified that
 the document provided was commented and struck through with a proposal to
 remove, with red lettering indicating proposal to change or move text. Cole
 elaborated further with a presentation to the commission, recapping the section
 and subsection approach for residential, commercial, and mixed use, then further
 to subsections for new, historic, and non-historic buildings.

 With residential structures highlighted at the last meeting, this meeting’s discussion
 began with porches. Cole noted there is repetitive language scattered throughout
 the section, which she proposes to condense, and that much of the edits are
 proposed to reduce redundancy and properly separate out the separate sections.

 Cole asked the commissioners for feedback on language for historic-age buildings
 in response to last month’s discussion. Since the Secretary of the Interior’s
 Standards for Rehabilitation provide guidance for historic structures, it presents an
 option for guidance language for the treatment of historic buildings in the
 Downtown Design Overlay District as the standards are meant to address changes
 to historic buildings in particular.
Chair Myres addressed “appurtenances” and whether they would be able to
encroach into the right of way. Cole noted that is the current language and agreed
that the correct term would be needed. A discussion of “appurtenances”,
“accessories”, and other possible alternative terms followed. Cole referred to the
definitions provided in the Unified Development Code (UDC) and noted that the
term “appurtenances” was written to cover a multitude of building features that may
not best be grouped. Chair Myres noted she did not want to overburden the
document unnecessarily, but a listing of elements under “additions” would be
needed. Commissioner Coley concurred. Various options to write the language
were explored. Cole noted the code is not currently set up for footnotes, but a
subsection would work. “Building features” or “Building elements” was much more
agreeable as a term.

Cole highlighted a turrets and cupolas portion for new construction and explained
the difference between the features. She asked the commissioners if they
preferred to strictly regulate those features or if an architect should be allowed to
design those features without strict size limits. Commissioner Coley would like to
see the final document with that section removed. Commissioner Didway asked
about the relationship to building height. Cole replied that other height protections
are in place that she thought were sufficient to control. A discussion of turrets,
cupolas, and oriels followed, with the age of architecture associated. Cole
proposed to remove from new construction for now but that it could be added back
if needed.

On front porches for new construction, residential buildings, Cole showed the
current definition and read it aloud. A discussion of the difference between porches
and stoops followed, and whether the standards should be minimum or maximum.
Chair Myres favored removing some of the prescriptive dimensional standards.
When asked by Chair Myres, Cole stated her position as “open” and noted porches
being integral to development as she showed examples of recent residential
projects in the Downtown. Chair Myres summarized as “big enough for a chair or
bench.” Commissioner Harper favored larger porches. Commissioner Coley
inquired about a contemporary structure’s porch. Cole requested to confirm
hearing from commissioners that the preferred porches, but what was the
preference on depth or dimension? Commissioner Harper talked about some of the
challenges of establishing dimensional standards.

Commissioner Rorex asked about the application of the standards currently and
what the complaints are. Cole responded that other sections tended to garner more
complaint than porches but with a reconsideration of the standards to separate out
new construction it was worth discussing. Commissioners then considered
combining porches and stoops. Chair Myres read a definition of stoop. Cole had
not found many examples in Fayetteville’s downtown and was able to show two
examples. Chair Myres preferred to address porches and stoops separately. Cole
showed the current code definitions, which do not live in the same section and




 2
 noted it can be confusing. Commissioner asked if the reason for the standard was
 to ensure a roof and control the width? He further asked what it was that the
 commission cared about in terms of need to regulate. Commissioners discussed
 the relationship to the right of way and the guidance to an architect. Chair Myres
 recommended considering the audience for the standards. Commissioner Coley
 discussed the various uses of the requirement and applicability to infill. The
 relationship of front doors to step or stair orientation was also discussed. Bostick
 noted that Planning staff also use the code to verify compliance when they review
 project drawings. Chair Myres preferred clarity in the text and having porches and
 stoops in the same section but addressed separately.

 Instances of sites with steep slopes were discussed and considered that create
 situations for lengthy stairs to stoops and porches. Bostick noted that a variance to
 the standards is available via petition to the Planning Commission. Awnings, roofs,
 and other covers to porches and stoops were discussed and dimensional
 requirements for those. Bostick talked about the relationship of building codes to
 the city’s zoning and development code and Commissioner Rorex having an
 excellent point about the applicability of building code ultimately. Commissioner
 Harper asked if the commission needed to focus a specific way, and staff’s
 recommendation was to focus on aesthetic issues, while they were happy to check
 with Building Safety to coordinate with building code requirements. Commissioner
 Harper and Chair Myres talked through scenarios for stoop height and depth and
 the relationship to the historic character of the Downtown. Chair Myres asked Cole
 to combine stoops and porches to review at the next meeting, where projecting
 bays will also be discussed.

New Business:
 1. 2026 CLG Grant Application: Cole described two project options for the
 commissioners. The first is Phase 2 of the citywide historic resource survey. The
 proposed area would include the downtown area as the Downtown Plan is starting
 and there is a timely opportunity to capture the southwest portion of the city. The
 proposed area has approximately 2,000 parcels. The second proposed project is for
 consultant support for local historic district design guidelines. Two neighborhoods are
 in the process of proposing local historic districts, and this would assist with the
 development of guidelines. Commissioner Harper asked if the petitions have been
 certified. Cole replied the Clerk’s office is still reviewing. Commissioner Coley
 motioned to recommend the proposed projects. Seconded by Commissioner Rorex.
 Unanimously approved by voice vote.

 2. Local Historic Districts: Cole provided a presentation on the process to establish a
 local historic district starting with the Arkansas Historic Districts Act. The presentation
 included a process flow chart, which Cole provided in printed copy to the
 commissioners. Commissioner Coley asked for a clarification if this is the same as
 the White Hangar at Drake Field. Cole affirmed and compared a National Register
 Historic District, which does not have regulations attached, to a local historic district,




 3
 which is the regulatory district. Two areas of town are now exploring the creation of a
 local historic district with regulations and must follow the state’s prescribed process.
 Cole walked commissioners through the flow chart and detailed the multiple steps.
 Commissioner Coley asked about the timeline for the HDC to issue the initial report.
 Cole replied that was not defined like the later steps in the process. Commissioner
 Harper asked about the comments from the Planning Commission and whether HDC
 would be able to see those comments. Cole replied that the Planning Commission’s
 role would be advisory only as they would be making a recommendation to HDC but
 not making a final decision. The state preservation office would similarly be making a
 recommendation and would likely have more substantive comments. Neither group is
 able to kill the proposal. At present one of the two groups has developed guidelines
 and one group would be using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and would
 need to go through a process to develop their own design guidelines. Commissioner
 Coley asked if three districts could have different guidelines or if they would all have
 to be the same. Cole noted that the three areas are different and cities both have
 custom standards and one size fits all standards so both options are possible. She
 illustrated by discussing the different approaches that would be needed for Mt. Nord
 versus a neighborhood with cottages. Cole is hopeful she will have more to share by
 next months’ meeting, but the timing is not within Long Range Planning staff’s
 control. The petitions cannot move forward without being certified as complete.

Other Business: None.

Announcements:
 1. Downtown Plan: Bostick shared an update on the Downtown Plan and provided a
 presentation sharing information about the project, timeline, and opportunities to
 engage, noting that commissioners would receive an email on Monday with details
 and a link to the new engagement web page.

Adjourned: 7:00 PM




 4