LAWRENCE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION
ACTION SUMMARY FEBRUARY 19, 2004
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners McKenzie, Marvin, Dean, Stuewe, Lodwick, Messick and Hickam.
Staff members Lynne Zollner, Katie Ambler and Amy Saker
ITEM NO. 1 ACTION SUMMARY
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. Messick to approve the January 2004 Action Summary as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
ITEM NO. 2 CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Zollner said there was no new correspondence beyond what was included in the regular Commission packets. She noted that all of the correspondence in the packets pertained to the State’s consideration of the new Historic Districts. Review of the district nominations will take place at the Historic Sites Board Meeting in Topeka, Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 9 a.m.
It was noted that the State had received 12 letters regarding the districts in which there was an indication that both supporters and protestors would be present at the Saturday meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: DR-01-03-04: 835
Alabama; Demolition and New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted
by Ty Herron for the property owners of record. The property is located within
the environs of the Ralph and Cloyd Achning House (846 Missouri),
National Register of Historic Places.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Because the applicant was detained and was not able to attend the beginning of the meeting, the Commission agreed unanimously to move this Item to the end of the agenda. At the end of all other agenda Items, the applicant had not yet arrived. There was discussion about the advisability of taking action without the applicant’s presence.
It was suggested that this submission did not contain the usual level of detailed information required for submission. Plans were not drawn to scale, important design details were absent and there was little or no indication of what existing elements would be retained. Ms. Zollner explained the original request for demolition and reconstruction had been revised to the current request the day before the packet materials were completed for delivery. Staff had not had enough time to request, obtain or review the information for this revised request for inclusion in the packet.
Several Commissioners expressed concern about making a determination based on the amount and level of data provided. It was suggested that the Item should be deferred to allow time for submission and review of the appropriate documentation. It was alternately suggested that the Commission could act on the request at this time, including a condition that the applicant work with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on the currently missing details. This would allow the applicant to proceed, rather than delaying his construction timeline.
The two members of the ARC were not in agreement about which option was appropriate. Comm. Lodwick was in favor of approving the project in concept, while Comm. Messick expressed a desire for more input from the Commission about what elements the ARC would be responsible for.
It was suggested that, upon discussion with the ARC, the applicant would find that “saving” the house would be unreasonably complicated and costly, and would have to return before the full Commission with his original demolition request. It was agreed that the proposed modifications, including raising the basement 30’ for a more usable space, would be difficult and expensive.
It was suggested that, with the level of modification being proposed, the completed project would not contain enough of the original structure’s historic character. More information was needed to understand how much sensitivity was being given to the retention of historic elements.
It was discussed that, with
or without the applicant’s presence, the Commission had two options: 1)
Approve the project with a condition for ARC review and the understanding the
ARC would return the issue to the full Commission if they (the ARC) felt the
level of work being done was significant enough for consideration of the full
Commission; or 2) table the Item until the applicant could be present, thus
also allowing for the gathering a review of missing information.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Stuewe, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review as requested, with the understanding that the applicant would work with the ARC on the elements currently missing from the submission.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was noted that the applicant was typically asked if they would be willing to participate in ARC Review and this was not possible at this point.
Ms. Zollner stated for the record that Staff was not comfortable with the proposal that two members of the Commission (the ARC) bear the entire responsibility for this level of detail. This project had been through many variations and, in Staff’s opinion, should be subject to the consideration of the majority of the Commission.
ARC member Comm. Messick commented that he would like the full Commission to expect and receive an adequate amount of information about projects at the beginning of the application process, rather than relying on the ARC to “clean up” an excessive amount of detail.
ACTION TAKEN
The motion on the floor was withdrawn.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Betty Alderson explained that she used to live near the subject area. She said this project had been through so many changes she was now unsure what the actual proposal entailed. She encouraged the Commission to save as much of the original structure as possible, pointing out the fragile corner position of the subject property.
The applicant arrived at this point and the Commission agreed to hear the Item from the beginning.
APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Ty Herron, property owner, stated that the existing house was in poor condition and would need extensive work to bring it to a functional state. The applicant wanted to pour a new foundation, raising it 30” to make the basement usable and accommodate egress.
The intent was to maintain the front lines of the structure in their current state, but add 12’ to the rear of the building. This would slightly change the roofline as seen from the street.
Since there were no elevation
sketches provided, the Commission asked Mr. Herron various questions about what
elements the applicant intended to retain and what would be removed. It was
specifically noted that the applicant did not intend to retain the front shed
dormer.
The Commission explained that elements like the shed dormer were significant features that they (the Commission) were given the ability and responsibility to protect as characteristic features of historic properties and their environs. It was suggested that the applicant consider carefully and identify other significant and characteristic features and retain as many of those features as possible.
The Commission discussed with Mr. Herron other elements that would be retained but were not shown as such on the existing documents. Among these were the corner boards and the lapped siding, which Mr. Herron stated would be “similar to what is there now”. He also said the new structure would “mimic” the 1 X 4’s around the existing exterior windows.
There was a comment that the Commission was in favor of the very general concept of saving the existing structure instead of demolishing and replacing it, but there was not agreement over whether the Commission should approve this general concept and allow the ARC to “work out the details”.
Comm. Messick stated that, as an ARC member, he would like a definite statement by the Commission that they were comfortable with the elements that were shown, such as the 30’ lift in the basement. In his opinion, it was not the role of the ARC to make decisions of this magnitude and the Commission should give the ARC specific direction for their review.
Chairman McKenzie asked what direction the Commission would like to take at this point, since it was not appropriate for them to redesign the project at this meeting.
Vice-Chairman Marvin did not think it would be appropriate to approve the concept based on the information currently given. Comm. Lodwick believed the concept as presented was adequate and he would be comfortable with approval under ARC review.
The applicant was asked to comment on the impact to his construction timeline if the Item were deferred for one month to allow for submission of additional information. Mr. Herron replied that he would like to proceed with pouring the foundation, but further construction would take at least a month in any case.
It was discussed that pouring the foundation would require a building permit, and some disagreement between the Commission and the applicant about whether the amount of information provided would be adequate to obtain this permit. It was noted that the permit would not be issued, regardless of the information provided, without HRC approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT - resumed
Tony Peterson, 923 Rhode Island said he was considering this project in terms of the kinds of review he would like to see in his own neighborhood.
Mr. Peterson was concerned that this project was being considered too causally. He thought it was inappropriate to approve major revisions like the 30” rise in the basement foundation without knowing what the overall construction would entail. Mr. Peterson asked about the purpose of the basement. Would it be a living space, rental unit, or simply a utility room for the primary structure?
It was clarified that it was not within the Commission’s purview to consider the ultimate use of the basement.
It was discussed that (some of) the Commissioners were in favor of “fast-tracking” the project, approving it in concept as a way to save the existing structure in place of demolition.
Mr. Peterson said he understood but was not in favor of fast-tracking and repeated his concern that the Commission was considering approving major modifications without a clear compelling reason.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested that, given the significance of the proposed changes, the best course of action would be to table the Item and allow the applicant to work with Staff to return in March with the appropriate information.
The Commission verified with Staff the type of direction an applicant received about what level of detail was required.
It was noted that this project was at the outer edge of the environs.
The Commission discussed previous considerations made without full detail, with some disagreement about whether any projects of this scope had been acted upon with such a general level of information.
It was pointed out that, based on discussion, there appeared to be a difference of opinion between the two members of the ARC about whether it would be appropriate turn the project over to that subcommittee at this point.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Marvin, seconded by Comm. Messick to table the Item until an adequate amount of information could be provided for the full Commission.
Motion carried 6-1, with Comm. Lodwick voting in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Mr. Herron asked the
Commission to provide some direction on how he should proceed, specifically
regarding the elevation of the basement. It was suggested that the
applicant try to create a design that would increase the usability of the
basement with less than 30” of increased elevation. 24” was discussed as a
more appropriate amount of increase.
The applicant was also asked to provide to-scale drawings with correct heights, elevation details and windows shown in their proper place and proportion.
The meeting adjourned at this point.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-01-04-04: 610 Ohio; Attic Remodel/Skylight; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Craft Building for the property owner of record. The property is in the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chris Combs, spoke on behalf of the project purchaser, explaining he “inherited” the project. He described the applicant’s request to add skylights to allow additional light into the attic space that had apparently been used as a bedroom for about 20 years. Extensive interior work would be needed for this project, including framing and reinforcing rafters.
The skylights were proposed for placement on the east, west and north sides of the roof to take the best advantage of sunlight and to avoid detracting from the appearance of the house. The changes were also designed to be easily removable in the future. Mr. Combs said he had not yet seen the Staff Report and was provided with a copy.
The Commission discussed with Mr. Combs how the work to date had been accomplished. It was suggested that the changes would not impair the existing area.
It was noted that Staff had mentioned an option of single pane egress windows instead of the proposed double-pane, to make it clear the skylights were recent additions. Ms. Zollner explained that this had only been a suggestion and there was no Staff objection to the windows as proposed by the applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
ACTION TAKEN
Commissioner Hickam indicated he would abstain from the vote as he had been involved with the sale of 610 Ohio Street to the current property owner.
Motioned by Comm. Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Messick to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 610 Ohio as requested, based on the determination that the project would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
1. Any changes to the approved repair project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
2. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before and after construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried 6-0-1, with Comm. Hickam in abstention.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-01-09-04: 1037 Vermont; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Watkins National Bank Building (1047 Massachusetts) and the Douglas County Courthouse (1100 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
This Item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-01-10-04: 402 N. 2nd Street;
Memorial Sculpture Landscape
Plan; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, property owner of record. The property is listed on the State Register of Historic Places.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Erv Hodges spoke as Chairman of Lawrence Monument Society, explaining the project had “been in process for a while”, and the purpose of tonight’s Item was to verify that the landscape plan for the project still coincided with the one initially proposed 4 years ago.
The Commission discussed with Mr. Hodges the appearance of monument, patina and maintenance of sculpture and landscaping chosen by the Parks & Recreation Department.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that the Commission was considering only the landscape plan at this stage, the monument itself had already been approved.
Comm. Dean asked to go on record noting that, during consideration of the monument itself, the Commission had discussed the advisability of this placement over other options. Although the Commission had not been in agreement at that time, he personally felt this location was appropriate.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean (Messick?), seconded by Vice-Chair Marvin to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the landscape plan for the project at 402 N. 2nd Street, based on the determination that the project would not “encroach upon, damage or destroy” any historic property or its environs.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-01-11-04: 705-09 Connecticut; Demolition of Structure; Certificate of Appropriateness. Submitted by Paul Winn for the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the McAllaster House (724 Rhode Island), Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Rev. Paul Winn, Pastor at the Praise Temple Church in Christ, explained the church’s wish to remove the existing structure. There was an eventual intent to rebuild on the subject property, but the immediate request was only for demolition of the existing building.
Rev. Winn said he had briefly looked over the Staff Report and understood its contents.
At Staffs’ recommendation, the church had been investigating rebuilding options. While no formal plans made and financing was not yet available, Rev. Winn supplied the Commission with copies of some basic contracting comments and estimates.
The church’s concept for rebuilding was for an annex to their sanctuary, for use as Sunday school rooms, a fellowship hall, etc. It was clarified that the church did not want to retain a vacant lot on the subject property and that no residential use was planned, but redevelopment would have to wait until financing was available.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
One Commissioner commented that, from his personal experience, he knew the subject building was in poor condition several years ago. It was suggested that, per the 1995 inventory form, building modifications had already been made that reduced the property’s historic significance and function.
It was further suggested that this building did not appear to have been constructed with a significant life expectancy and that, given the condition of the building, demolition would be a prudent choice.
Staff responded to questioning that the information provided this evening was adequate to fulfill the recommended condition for additional reconstruction information. It was noted that the new structure would come before the Commission when the church was ready to proceed with the project. It was suggested the applicant’s architect should work with Staff to ensure compatibility of the new building.
Comm. Stuewe asked to go on record noting this was a break with the Commission’s precedent of allowing demolition without detailed discussion of what will ultimately be constructed in replacement. However, he felt it would be appropriate in this case to make an exception.
Safety concerns were discussed, with the comment that the church did not want to be responsible for retaining an unsafe structure next-door and accessible to area children.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Stuewe, seconded by Comm. Lodwick to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure at 705-709 Connecticut, based on the determination that the project would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant take black and white photographs of the interior and exterior of the property prior to demolition (City Staff will take photographs at the applicant’s request).
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 8: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the January 15, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition requests for the Commission’s consideration.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the January 15, 2004 regular meeting.
The ARC had not met since the last Commission meeting.
Administrative Reviews
DR-10-76-03: 4 E. 7th Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Kaw Specialties for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts) National Register of Historic Places, and the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-12-93-03: 835 Alabama; Garage Demolition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Bruce and Sharon Livingston, property owners of record. The property is located within the environs of the Ralph and Cloyd Achning House (846 Missouri), National Register of Historic Places.
(Staff noted that this Item was discussed in December 2003 and the Commission asked Staff to bring it forward as an Administrative Review once certain issues were resolved.)
DR-01-01-04: 740 Massachusetts; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Daniel Kolsky for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places, and Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts) Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
(It was clarified that the sign in question had been in place for some time and the request was only to add lettering to the existing sign.)
DR-01-02-04: 947 New Hampshire; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Blair Sign Co. for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Hanna Building (933 Massachusetts), the Hendry House (941 Rhode Island), Lawrence Register of Historic Places and the Shalor Eldridge Residence (945 Rhode Island), Lawrence and State Registers of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-01-05-04: Pawnee & Barker; Waterline Improvements; Certified Local Government
Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, Department of Public Works. The property is in the environs
of the Haskell University Stadium, Auditorium and Pushmata Hall (Haskell
University Campus), National Register of Historic Places.
DR-01-06-04: Vermont & New Jersey; Waterline Improvements; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, Department of Public Works. This project is within the environs of several properties listed on the National, State and Lawrence Historic Registers. (A list of properties is available at the City Planning Department.) The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-01-07-04: 745 New Hampshire; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Kent Smalter, property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places and the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-01-08-04: 647 Massachusetts; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), the United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places and the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Stuewe to approve all Administrative Reviews as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since January 15, 2004.
There were no BZA Items for the Commission’s review.
D. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
·
It was noted that the Commission had received an
updated list of local, State and Nationally registered properties.
· It was determined that Comm. Stuewe had not received a Commissioner’s Notebook and Staff agreed to provide one.
ADJOURN – 8:30 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.