ACTION SUMMARY MAY 20, 2004
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners McKenzie, Dean, Hickam, Lodwick, Alstrom and Sizemore
Staff members Lynne Zollner, Katie Ambler and Amy Saker.
Two grammatical changes were requested to the summary of the April 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the April 2004 summary as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Comm. Hickam abstaining due to his absence from the April meeting.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Zollner outlined the following communications:
• Announcement from National Park Service that the Black Jack Battlefield was now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Notification that the nomination for the Hancock Historic District had been reviewed and approved by the Kansas Historic Sites Board of Review and would be forwarded to the National Park Service for review.
• List of current state tax credit projects as identified by the State Historic Preservation Office.
• Staff responded to questioning that it was possible for properties to be removed from the register if they lost their historic integrity (through fire, damage, deterioration, modification, etc.)
Vice-Chair Lodwick asked if the Commission had any objection to moving Item 8, the consideration of the Historic Preservation element of HORIZON 2020, to the beginning of the agenda. He felt it related to a number of the other agenda Items and believed it could be dealt with quickly since it had been in the review process for a considerable time.
It was suggested that it would be unfair to make the property owners and public in attendance for other Items wait longer than necessary. The Commission agreed to leave Item 8 in its regular agenda placement.
Staff explained the applicant’s representative for Item 5 was at another meeting and had requested that this Item be placed at the end of the agenda.
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to move Item 5 to the end of the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 3: DR-04-30-04: 724 Indiana; Demolition and Garage Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Michael Morley for the property owner of record. The property is located in the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner showed photographs of the garage as surveyed in 2002 and in its current state of disrepair. The applicant suggested that the telephone pole adjacent to the garage was holding the structure upright.
Staff recognized the state of disrepair, but recommended denial of the proposed demolition and replacement of the structure because it was listed as a contributing structure in the Old West Lawrence Historic District.
The Staff Report did provide recommended conditions in case the Commission chose to approve the project.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Michael Morley, speaking on behalf of property owner, said he thought outbuildings in this area “were not built to last”.
Mr. Morley said the existing structure had a sagging roof and mostly rotten or broken timbers. He suggested there was not enough historic material remaining to justify the “extreme costs” of repairing the original garage structure, such as removal/disposal of (possible) lead paint and lifting/replacing the existing concrete slab.
The applicant proposed constructing a new garage in the existing footprint, gabled in front, with windows and doors designed to match the period of the original structure. The applicant also intended to use an alternate siding material, rather than wood siding.
Mr. Morley responded to questioning that he had advised the property owner not to use the existing structure for safety reasons.
It was established that the applicant proposed a 1½-story replacement structure, intending to use the upper level for storage.
It was noted that the application indicated a new garage door of stamped steel. Mr. Morley was strongly advised to consider an alternative door material. He indicated his willingness to have this element be subject to review.
When asked if he planned to reuse any of the historic materials, Mr. Morley said he would look over them and “see what was salvageable”.
It was determined that the existing stone wall somewhat dictated placement of the garage door.
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that Staff’s recommendation for denial was based in part on a concern over lacking cost estimate data. Staff was not prepared to recommend approval of the demolition of a listed structure based on the cost to repair the structure without having an opportunity to review a cost analysis.
It was established that the applicant had not prepared those numbers, and suggested that this information was particularly important in light of similar decisions.
Mr. Morley suggested the Commission would approve demolition if they saw the structure and would not waste the property owner’s money. It was verified that, as a contributing structure, the garage (repair) would be eligible for tax credits as long as all construction met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
It was discussed whether this structure was shown on the Sanborn maps and how detailed those maps were abut garage structures. It was established that the building was listed in poor condition in the 2002 survey.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick said he “leaned toward” allowing the project to go forward. He said that there were a number of garages in the neighborhood but not all of them contributed to the historical context. He suggested it would not take long to put together an estimate of repair vs. replacement costs, but “we all know repair would be more [expensive]”. Comm.’s McKenzie and Dean disagreed and said they were not comfortable approving the project without seeing cost estimates.
Comm. Alstrom said he would hesitate to approve demolition if the structure were found on a Sanborn map. However, if the foundation was bad, the cost of repair would be a “waste”.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The precedent that would be set by this proposal was discussed, noting the likelihood that other neighbors would make similar requests.
Comm. Dean said it was possible he would support the proposal if the applicant was willing to meet the conditions provided by Staff and based upon the structure’s state of substantial disrepair.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Vice-Chair Lodwick to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 724 Indiana based on the determination that cost of repair would exceed that of replacement and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide additional documentation regarding the renovation cost related to replacement cost;
2. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
3. The siding material for the new structure be wood lap siding;
4. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of related work;
5. The applicant provide measured drawings of the existing structure; and
6. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and after construction. (City Staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Commission discussed material alternatives for the new garage door and it was suggested that this element be included in condition two regarding the siding material. It was determined that a separate condition would be best.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Hickam to amend the original motion, adding a condition stating the garage door must be of compatible material.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 724 Indiana, based on the determination that cost of repair would exceed that of replacement and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. The applicant provide additional documentation regarding the renovation cost relate to replacement cost;
2. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
3. The siding material for the new structure be wood lap siding;
4. The new door will be of a compatible material;
5. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of related work;
6. The applicant provide measured drawings of the existing structure; and
7. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and after construction. (City Staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-04-31-04: 1318 New Hampshire; New Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Kristina and Orion McNyset, property owners of record. The property is located in the environs of the John N. Roberts House (1307 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of the subject property, explaining the applicant’s intent to remove the existing attached shed and replace it with a new addition, extending the gabled roof of the primary structure.
It was noted that this property is in the environs of a nationally listed property.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Orion McNyset, property owner, showed with Staff’s photographs that the shed section was falling off of the primary structure. He said the slope was wrong and the foundation needed to be re-poured.
The proposal included the addition of two windows on the alley side to allow more natural light into the new space.
In response to Staff’s request for more material detail, it was established that double-hung windows were intended, wrapped in material to match the primary structure. The applicant was instructed to provide Staff with a specification sheet for the windows and other elements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The importance of specification sheets was stressed.
It was verified that the small existing northern window would be eliminated to accommodate the extension of the roof gable.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Sizemore to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1318 New Hampshire, based on a determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs and subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant provides complete construction documents with window specifications and material notations. Staff will review and approve any modifications.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO.5: DR-04-33-04: 615 Massachusetts; Deck Addition; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for property owner of record. The property is listed on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, the United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places, and the Consolidated Barb Wire Building (546 New Hampshire), Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
At the beginning of the meeting, this Item was moved to the end of the agenda at the applicant’s request. However, at this point in the meeting, the applicant was present and ready to move forward with the Item in its regular order.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented photographs of the subject property, explaining the applicant’s request to remove and replace the existing rear deck structure with a new 2-story deck.
It was noted that the entire structure, including the existing deck, had been on the local historic register since 1993.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the design of the new deck was based on a similar structure recently approved for a similar use on Massachusetts Street (Louise’s Bar).
Mr. Adams explained the proposed deck would not attach to the primary structure, having a concrete slab for the lower level and a self-supporting design for the upper deck. A semi- permeable railing was intended.
Various roof options had been considered, and a dual-level arching design had been proposed to match the arched motif of the two adjacent buildings. The applicant had considered having no roof on the upper deck, but felt some kind of coverage would be preferable and help with maintenance. It was clarified that guttering would be part of the roof design to keep storm water runoff from draining on the adjacent buildings.
It was suggested that the upper level could be left without a roof, since patrons could go to the lower level in poor weather conditions. Mr. Adams said the business would like to retain their existing, indoor practice of having the majority of dining patrons on the lower levels, while the “non-diners” tended to go upstairs.
It was established that the proposed deck would not be visible from Massachusetts Street, even with a roof, but it was likely to be seen from 6th Street.
It was discussed that the deck would have to have an external access (stairs) to meet exit requirements, but this was not intended to be the primary access. It was discussed whether this should be a gated access, but Mr. Adams pointed out clearance issues and fire code requirements.
It was discussed that this structure differed from Louise’s in that it was an eating establishment in addition to a bar. Staff pointed out this proposal was also different because this was a listed property, when Louise’s was not.
The roof was discussed at length, with suggestions of a canopy, metal paneling, a retractable awning or an open truss design. Mr. Adams asked if the Commission could make a determination on whether a roof would be permitted at all, then allow the applicant to work with the ARC on design issues.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Roof issues were discussed further, with suggestions of lighter, less intrusive materials to reduce the visual impact on the primary structure.
Problems were noted with the “no roof” design, including drainage and maintenance.
There was discussion about whether the Commission could provide Staff or the ARC with enough direction about the desired roof to allow Staff/ARC review of the final material and design. Members of the ARC indicated the roof was a significant issue and they felt the full Commission should be involved in the review process.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Vice-Chair Lodwick to approve the Certified Local Government Review, the Certificate or Appropriateness and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 615 Massachusetts, based on the determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs, and based on the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide detailed information on how the new construction will be attached to the historic structure;
2. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
3. The applicant work on roofing options with the ARC, which may refer the decision to the full HRC if no satisfactory determination is found.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
There was additional discussion about whether the ARC’s work with the applicant should rely upon the Commission’s willingness to accept a roof on the structure, or if discussion should center on no-roof options. It was clarified that the motion was intended to imply that a roof would be permitted and the ARC would review material and design options to minimize the visual impact of that roof on the primary structure.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Certified Local Government Review, the Certificate or Appropriateness and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 615 Massachusetts, based on the determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs, and based on the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide detailed information on how the new construction will be attached to the historic structure;
2. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
3. The applicant work on roofing options with the ARC, which may refer the decision to the full HRC if no satisfactory determination is found.
Motion carried 4-2, with Comm.’s Dean and Alstrom voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-04-36-04: 707 Tennessee; Garage Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jack Hope for the property owner of record. The property is located in the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
Comm. Alstrom recused himself from this Item because he had prepared the elevation drawings for the project.
STAFF PRESNTATION
Staff presented pictures of the subject property, explaining the applicant’s request to replace the existing garage with a larger structure. The property, including the garage, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Old West Lawrence Historic District.
Staff recommended denial of the project but provided the Commission with suggested restrictions if approval were granted, including the stipulation that the new garage be limited to 440 square feet to maintain the (green space) character of the neighborhood.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jack Hope spoke on behalf of the property owner, explaining the submitted drawings were done before an exact measurement of the rear yard was known. Based on the incorrect drawings, Staff had concluded two variances would be needed for the project - one for the percentage of rear yard coverage of the proposed accessory building, and another for the rear yard setback.
Correct measurements had now been provided, showing the rear yard was large enough to accommodate a garage of 603 square feet without a variance. The applicant requested a garage of 528 square feet, smaller than the size allowed by code. It was noted that a variance was still needed for the setback.
It was established that the new information about the actual size of the rear yard did not affect Staff’s recommendation. As this was a contributing property, Staff was of the opinion that the structure proposed by the applicant was too large to fit the character of the area and continued to support the recommendation of a structure limited to 440 square feet.
It was noted that one existing tree would be lost. Mr. Hope said the applicant was not interested in retaining that tree and had alternate landscaping plans for the rest of the property.
Mr. Hope explained in response to questioning that a south placement was chosen because of the existing sewer and power lines on the northern side of the rear yard, as well as the difficult turning radius on that side.
It was established that the larger garage was intended to accommodate two cars and a workbench area, with storage on the second story.
It was clarified that the roofing material was incorrect in the drawings and would match the primary structure.
Mr. Hope explained the property owner’s desire to use “Smart Siding”, a pressed wood product textured to resemble hardwood siding, rather than actual wood lap siding. He discussed the problems associated with cedar siding, including proper application of paint and frequent maintenance, and explained how Smart Siding eliminated these problems while giving the visual appearance of “real” wood siding.
It was discussed that Smart Siding had been used on the garage at 515 Ohio, with Staff pointing out that the Ohio Street garage was in the environs, while the subject property was listed as a contributing structure.
It was verified that the garage would be visible from Tennessee Street.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick said he was less concerned with the proposed size because the design was pleasing to look at. He did not think the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards was to keep property owners from having a garage, especially since “everyone there has a garage”.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick said he would be willing to approve the project based on its aesthetic appeal and let the Board of Zoning Appeals deal with the size issue. Comm. Dean responded that size and massing were important elements to consider in the historic review as well. He also shared Staff’s concerns about the proposed siding material on a listed property.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick suggested this met the intent of the standards to differentiate between old and new construction and to allow reuse of old properties for new uses.
There was extended discussion about the appropriate size of the garage. Mr. Hope said the applicant purchased the home with the intent of using the upper level of the garage for storage. However, it was difficult and somewhat unsafe to transport the type of materials he wished to store using the pull-down staircase in the existing garage. Therefore a portion of the new, larger garage requested was meant to accommodate a permanent set of stairs.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick felt the smaller size recommended by Staff “severely restricted” the homeowners use of his property. Comm. Alstrom countered that someone buying a historic home should understand they were “giving up some of the amenities” (space in this case) of modern structures.
Mr. Hope pointed out the property owner was able to build the 22’ X 20’ garage as recommended by Staff and add a metal shed for the additional storage space. This would be permitted by code but would not look as nice as the larger garage being proposed.
Comm. Hickam said this was one of the most important historic areas in Lawrence and part of the neighborhood’s ambiance was the eclectic nature of the alley. He did not feel the proposed garage was too intrusive.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Dean repeated that his concern was not with design or materials but with size.
The Commission discussed whether the “Smart Siding” would meet the intent of the standards to preserve the visual character and appearance of the historic area and whether this element should be subject to ARC review with the possibility of allowing Smart Siding in place of wood lap siding.
Vice-Chair Lodwick commented on new technology and asked if the Commission would always “fall back” on wood siding. It was suggested that this was a question for case-by-case consideration and that alternate siding materials were not suitable for this particular project because it was a nationally listed property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 707 Tennessee, based on a determination that it would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with correct material notations and specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. The siding material for the new structure be wood lap siding; and
3. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Mr. Hope asked if he could deal with the ARC to consider “Smart Siding” in place of wood lap siding. Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that, in her opinion, the stamped surface of the Smart Siding was visibly different from wood siding and was not appropriate on a contributing property. Since visual character was a significant point of the standards, she suggested that the ARC could visit the site at 515 Ohio and make a determination whether “Smart Siding” is an adequate alternative.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Dean to amend the motion to allow an exploration by the ARC of alternative siding materials for appropriate compatibility.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Comm. Alstrom recused.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 707 Tennessee, based on a determination that it would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with correct material notations and specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. The applicant work with the ARC to explore compatible siding material options; and
3. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
Motion carried 4-1-1, with Comm. Dean voting in opposition and Comm. Alstrom recused.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-04-37-04: 733 Massachusetts; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Mark Willingham for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places and the Lucy Hobbs Taylor Building (809 Vermont), 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.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented photographs of the subject property, explaining the applicant’s request to remodel the storefront of an existing business.
Ms. Zollner expressed appreciation for the applicant’s efforts to locate original pictures or drawings of the structure, although these had not been found. She said some of the lost historic elements could be detected in the remaining structure, and an attempt to recreate those elements was reflected in the proposed design.
Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mark Willingham, business owner, said modifications made by previous owners made the existing storefront incompatible with the downtown character. The current owners wanted to bring the storefront closer to its original appearance, putting ceramic tiles in the doorway, restoring the original brass-handled door and opening up windows that had been boarded shut.
The main problem facing this project was that the applicants leased only half of the building, and the owners of the building had were not interested in financing similar changes to the other storefront. This meant that the project did not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines intent of building unity.
The Commission discussed the importance of consistency and it was suggested that these modification would “create momentum for the other side”. Ms. Zollner explained she had sent information to the other property owner about federal and state tax credits the property would be eligible for (when the Downtown District was approved) that would help fund restoration efforts.
It was suggested the transom windows could be restored but left hidden by the existing awning until the entire building was restored. There was a general discussion about awnings as a design element in the historic downtown district.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed design and material options.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Hickam to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certified Local Government Review, and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 733 Massachusetts, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and
3. The applicant takes 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 unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 8: Vote on adoption of the HORIZON 2020 Preservation Plan Element.
STAFF PRESNETATION
Staff had no additional comments and recommended approval of the document as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to accept and adopt the HORIZON 2020 Preservation Plan Element as presented and forward the Executive Summary to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Comm. Sizemore abstaining because he had not been on the Commission during development of the document.
ITEM NO. 9: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the April 15, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the April 15, 2004 regular meeting.
There had been no ARC meetings.
DR-10-74-03: 745 Ohio; Roof and Gutter Repairs; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jack Rose for the property owners of record. The property is in the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
DR-04-25-04: 945-47 Massachusetts; Louvers; Certificate of Appropriateness. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Hanna Building (933 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-04-26-04: 616 Vermont Street; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and 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), National Register of Historic Places, the United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places, and the J.B. Shane/Shane-Thompson Photographic Studio (615 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that this sign was already in place and had been approved by the ad hoc committee. Staff clarified the procedures for review and appeal of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
DR-04-27-04: 733 New Hampshire; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Star Signs for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, the United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places, the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), Kansas and Lawrence Registers 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.
DR-04-28-04: 308 Mississippi; Deck; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Charlie Dominguez for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Albert and S.T. Zimmerman House (304 Indiana), National Register of Historic Places.
DR-04-32-04: 743 Massachusetts; Sidewalk Dining; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by J. Stephen Lane for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, the Lucy Hobbs Taylor Building (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places, the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), Kansas and Lawrence Registers 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.
DR-04-34-04: 820 Massachusetts; Awning; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Kaw Specialties, Inc. for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Lucy Hobbs Taylor Building (809 Vermont), and the Carnegie Library (200 W. 9th Street), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-04-35-04: 1000 Mississippi; Basement Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Evan Ice for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Michael D. Greenlee House (947 Louisiana), National Register of Historic Places.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Administrative Reviews as presented by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since April 15, 2004.
B-05-11-04: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The variance is from the provisions in Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which limits the size for an accessory structure to no greater than 30 percent of the required rear yard area. The applicant is asking for variance approval to construct an accessory building size of 528 s.f., which is 78 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (450 s.f. allowed). The variance would allow the applicant to construct a new two-car garage. The property is located at 707 Tennessee Street and is legally described as: Lot 53 on Tennessee Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Jack Hope with Jack Hope Design/Build, Inc., for Kirk and Jeannie McClure, property owners of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that this project had been discussed as Agenda Item 6 and the Commission did not feel it necessary to comment on the Board of Zoning Appeal’s role in the process.
D. General public comment.
No member of the public came forward with additional comments or concerns.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
Staff asked for volunteers to assist in a study to establish garage guidelines. Comm.’s Hickam, Dean and Lodwick agreed to take part in the study, which would be presented to the full HRC for consideration.
ADJOURN - 10:10 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.