11/12/2014 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

painted to look like wood doors, then asked the applicant if he was proposing to enclose the existing fagade inset, which Mr. Wicks answered that he was proposing to enclose the existing inset. Chair Cox noted that the commission could make an exception and approved the proposed materials, but an exception would set precedence for other similar requests. Commissioner Allcorn stated that the metal doors could be acceptable if designed and finished to resemble wood doors, but that the existing facade inset was an important feature of the building and should not be eliminated. She then asked the applicant if the proposed doors could be partially inset to maintain some of the existing fagade inset, and Mr. Wicks answered that handicap accessibility regulations required the doors to be separated. Vice Chair Glatfelter asked if the proposed vestibule could be located inside the building so that the fagade inset would remain. Mr. Wicks answered that an interior vestibule would reduce the available floor space for his business, and that the fagade inset was not desirable because of trash accumulation and the possibility of vagrants hiding in the inset. Commissioner Holbert asked if the proposed doors could be located further inward, which the applicant answered that the doors would be too close to meet handicap accessibility standards. Vice Chair Glatfelter stated that metal doors were not appropriate in the historic district and suggested that the applicant consult with an architect to determine the appropriate design of a wood door. Chair Cox asked Commissioner Ardila if she felt that the proposal was appropriate. She answered that since the proposal was to add a transparent layer in front of an existing historic feature without removing the historic feature she felt that the proposal was appropriate. Gary Brown, with Uptown Properties, spoke in favor of the applicant's proposal and felt that the proposal should be considered a remodel instead of a restoration and that the design guidelines allowed the commission the flexibility to approve the applicant's proposal. A motion was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter to table the item to allow the applicant redesign the proposal and resubmit. The motion failed for lack of a second. Chair Cox motioned to approve the proposal with the exception of the door material, and a second was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter. The motion failed with a vote of 2 -4. A motion was made by Commissioner Ardila and seconded by Commissioner Alsobrook to approve the item as proposed. The motion carried 4 -1 -1. B. Spray Park and Parking Lot, 207 Clarksville St., First United Methodist Church Chair Cox introduced the item and called the applicant. Mr. Sleeper explained that the project was a joint effort by the First United Methodist Church and the City of Paris, as well as others in the community. He further explained that the project included removing the existing parking lot paving and replacing it with the proposed development. The proposed development would include parking spaces, a public park, pedestrian facilities. A motion was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Holbert to approve the item as submitted. The motion carried 6 -0. — CONSENT AGENDA-- - [Items appearing on this consent agenda may be approved by a single vote of the Commission, with such approval applicable to all items appearing on said agenda. If any Commission member desires to discuss and consider separately any item appearing on the consent agenda, 2