11/12/2014 MINUTESMINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF PARIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2014
4:00 O'CLOCK P.M.
1. The meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chair
Douglas Cox.
A. The following commissioners were present: Chair Douglas Cox, Vice Chair
Michael Glatfelter, Cindy Allcorn, Ruth Ann Alsobrook, Beatrice Ardila, and
Sherrie Holbert ( Allcorn and Holbert arriving during item 2A)
B. Lauri Redus was absent.
C. Staff also present: Joey Sleeper, Historic Preservation Officer; Alan Efrussy,
Planning Manager; Cheri Bedford, Main Street Coordinator
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (September 22, 2014)
Motion was made by Vice Chair Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Alsobrook
to approve the minutes as written. The motion carried 4 -0.
3. Consideration of and action on the following Certificates of Appropriateness:
A. Paris Optical retail space, 23 East Plaza, Colton Wicks
Chair Cox introduced the item and called the applicant, Colton Wicks. Mr. Wicks
explained that he wanted to install anodized aluminum storefront doors flush with the
sidewalk and existing windows. He further explained that the proposed door would
create a vestibule for the building which he felt would enhance security, reduce energy
costs, be easier for older customers to open, and help control dust inside the building.
Vice Chair Glatfelter asked if Mr. Wicks had any historic photographs or blueprints of
the building, which he answered that he did not have photographs or blueprints. Chair
Cox noted that although some buildings currently had aluminum doors, the Design
Standards for Historic Districts did not allow new installation of aluminum doors
unless historically original. He then asked the applicant if he would consider installing
wood doors instead of aluminum doors. Mr. Wicks answered that aluminum doors
were more suitable for his business needs and that wood doors might be too heavy and
difficult for elderly customers to open. Commissioner Ardila noted that wood windows
were permitted to be replaced with non -wood replacement windows, and that the
proposed material and color should be acceptable. Mr. Sleeper clarified that the
commission had previously approved the use of non -wood replacement windows
provided the design and mullion arrangement matched the historic windows.
Commissioner Alsobrook asked the applicant if he knew the difference in price between
the proposed aluminum door and a wood door, which Mr. Wicks answered that he did
not know what the price difference was. Commissioner Holbert noted that a recent
renovation at 107 Grand Avenue had been permitted to use metal doors that had been
1
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
that Commission member may do so by requesting that the item be removed from the consent
agenda and considered as a separate item.]
4. Discussion of and possible action regarding the following structures considered by code
inspectors to be in violation of Article III of Chapter 7 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Paris, Paris, Texas, entitled "Substandard and Dangerous Buildings and Structures," to
determine whether such buildings or structures can be rehabilitated and designated on the
National Register of Historic Places, as a recorded Texas Historic Landmark, or as historic
property as designated by the City Council of the City of Paris.
Code Enforcement recommends demolition of the following structures:
A. 285 W Neagle
B. 2635 & 2645 E Price
C. 1226 SE 15th
A motion was made by Commissioner Holbert and seconded by Commissioner
Alsobrook to recommend all items for demolition. The motion carried 6 -0.
5. Staff update on mural ordinance.
Mr. Efrussy explained that staff was working on a draft ordinance and would submit
the completed version to the commission at a future meeting. No action was taken.
6. Future Agenda Items
Chair Cox requested future agenda items to discuss a final draft of the mural ordinance
and a reportfrom the materials subcommittee. Commissioner Ardila requested a future
item to discuss appropriate methods for repairing historic flat roofs. Vice Chair
Glatfelter requested an item to discuss the attendance policy of the commission. No
action was taken.
7. Adjournment
With no other matters to discuss, a motion to adjourn was made by Vice Chair
Glatfelter and seconded by Commissioner Alsobrook. The motion carried 6 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
APPROVED THIS 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
hair uglas Cox
3