Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Rehabilitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board approves artistic gallery doors concept at 4319 S. Gay St., asks for final shop drawings
Summary
The board approved the Manson Art Gallery’s concept for carved wood doors at 4319 South Gay Street, subject to staff conditions and a requirement that final shop drawings or renderings for both wall- and Gay‑Street doors return to the board for review and approval.
The Downtown Design Review Board on Sept. 17 approved a concept for artistic carved wood doors at 4319 South Gay Street, the former Bridal Union building now occupied by the Manson Art Gallery, but required final door shop drawings or renderings be resubmitted to the board before fabrication.
Planning staff presented the case and recommended approval of the previously issued certificate of appropriateness with two earlier conditions and an added requirement that the final door design be submitted to planning staff for review. Designer Amy Sheryl of Benefield Richters told the board the doors are commissioned art pieces and that the images shown were “inspiration” rather than final designs; she said the owner prefers solid wood doors to preserve a sense of security and the gallery’s intentional “mystery.”
Board members pressed for clarity about transparency at the residential entrance and precedent for solid carved doors on Gay Street. Cameron Bolen (board member) said he was “comfortable” with the design intent but wanted a shop drawing or artistic sketch before final sign-off; Mark Reel (Plans Review and Inspections) explained that permitting staff could hold a final zoning inspection until the certificate of appropriateness (COA) matches the permitted construction if details are finalized later.
Cameron Bolen moved to approve the staff recommendation with the added condition that the carved front doors (both the Gay Street gallery entrance and the Wall Street residential entrance) be resubmitted to the board as shop drawings or renderings during fabrication; the motion was seconded and carried. The board emphasized that it was approving the concept and that final fabricated doors must match the drawings submitted for final approval.
The board’s action preserves the artistic direction the applicant seeks while requiring sufficient documentation to ensure installed elements conform to the COA. The board did not adopt a prescriptive look for the doors — members acknowledged the project’s artistic nature — but required that the applicant return with precise shop drawings so staff and the board can verify the final appearance before the certificate is finalized.
