03/11/2015 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

demolition. The motion carried S -D. 4. Discussion of proposed changes to the Paris Historic Preservation Ordinance Chair Cox introduced the item and asked Mr. Sleeper to explain the proposed changes. Mr. Sleeper explained that a group of downtown business owners had requested changes to the ordinance to allow a faster approval process. He further explained that the proposed ordinance changes would allow more approvals by city staff, reduce the size of the commission, and reduce the number of required meetings of the commission. Mr. Sleeper also stated that the city is a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Parks Services program, and that a minimum of S members and 6 meetings per year of the commission were required to maintain that certification. He then explained that the purpose of this item was to seek comments from the commission about the proposed changes, and that the comments would be relayed to the City Manager. Chair Cox then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the proposed ordinance changes. Dr. Robert Mosely stated that he owned property at 3rd (SW) and Kaufman (W) and that he felt the commission size should remain at 7 members. Sybil Colson of 819 Lamar Avenue felt that if the board was reduced to S members then a quorum should be more than 2 members, and that more frequent meetings would be better. She stated that she felt the proposed qualifications of commissioners were too elitist and should include average citizens. She also felt that the proposed section called demolition by neglect was too vague and should be more specific. Lastly, she felt that the powers given to the Historic Preservation Officer were too vague and too broad, and that the commission should be consulted before any action is taken. Barbara Wilson stated that she was a previous member of the commission and had helped put the current ordinance in place. She felt that the current ordinance was good and had stood up in federal court. She stated that the CLG program also had requirements for member qualifications which should be included in the ordinance. She also felt that if the duties of the Historic Preservation Officer are expanded, that additional training was necessary so that the officer's decisions would hold up in court. Lastly, she felt that the duties of the Historic Preservation Officer should be better defined to allow the officer to make more of the day to day decisions without going to the commission. With no one else in the audience wanting to speak, Chair Cox stated that he wanted to keep 7 members on the commission because it would be easier to make a quorum, and that the commission should meet at least monthly. He also felt that the member qualifications should include more average citizens. He then stated that the duties of the historic preservation officer should be to interact with the public and to review minor work allowed by the current ordinance, including alternative materials previously approved by the commission. Other issues, including signs, he felt should come before the commission. 2