The Historic Resources Commission on Sept. 18 approved a certificate of approval for a new doctors’ office at 1005 West Sixth Street, requiring the building’s primary entrance remain on the south side next to the parking lot to preserve functionality and accessibility for patients.

Commissioners decided after an extended discussion and public comments that the project’s design revisions recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) largely met Chapter 22 design standards, while carving out a mandatory change that preserved direct parking access for patients.

Lynn Braddock Zollner, the city’s historic resources administrator, told commissioners staff and the ARC considered three design options and concluded the ARC-preferred revision (called “option 2” in meeting materials) best met the intent of Chapter 22’s design standards and guidelines. Zollner said staff would condition approval so the historic resources administrator could approve “small design changes” to materials or windows before building permits are issued.

Architect Fred Schneider, representing the applicant, urged the commission to keep the south entry. “We feel that a direct access from the parking lot into the building is a must,” Schneider said, describing operational needs such as moving elderly patients and wheelchair users into exam rooms. Owner Doug Compton echoed that concern: “The patients park on the south side of the building, and that’s where it needs to be.”

A former clinical staffer who helped design the floor plan, Deanna Bowman, testified the south-side door was essential for patient privacy and logistics: “That door, for the sake of the patients, has to be on the south side of the building.” Commissioners also heard from ARC members and staff about design moves to make the building’s material palette more compatible with the surrounding context, including reducing the number of stone types and using horizontal lap siding.

ARC members noted several changes in the applicant’s revised designs: consolidation to fewer materials, lowering some stone wainscoting to create a base-like “water table” around the building, and switching some second-floor doors to windows to address privacy concerns. The ARC and staff recommended allowing limited administrative adjustments to final materials and minor fenestration details, with the condition that anything judged to exceed “small changes” return to the full commission.

Commissioners also discussed site constraints. Staff explained grade changes on the lot pushed required accessible parking toward the west side of the parking area, which influenced how close accessible stalls could be to a hypothetical east-side entry. The applicant noted regulatory limits as well: the development code restricts projecting soffits and would make certain covered entry solutions difficult without variances.

After deliberation Commissioner Buchanan moved to approve option 2 with the condition that the historic resources administrator may approve small design adjustments but the entrance “must stay on the south side.” Commissioner Dearborn seconded. The roll call vote was 6–0 in favor: Commissioner Dearborn — yes; Commissioner Cunningham — yes; Commissioner Klein — yes; Commissioner Hernley — yes; Commissioner Buchanan — yes; Chair Coleman — yes. The motion carries.

The commission’s decision synthesizes ARC design direction with operational concerns raised by the applicants and clinicians. Staff will work with the owner to finalize materials and minor details; if proposed post-approval changes would exceed the authorized administrative scope, the project must return to the HRC.