ACTION SUMMARY JULY 15, 2004 DRAFT
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners Dean, Marvin, Lodwick, Alstrom and Sizemore
Staff members Lynne Zollner and Amy Saker.
No changes were requested to the summary of the June 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Comm. Lodwick, seconded by Chairman Marvin to approve the action summary of the June 17, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
· Letter notifying the Commission that the Black Jack Battlefield nomination was being amended to add acreage to the site. It will go before the historic sites board at their next meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: DR-06-44-04: 1416 Tennessee Street; Boarding House Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee) and the William Priestly House (1505 Kentucky), National Register of Historic Places. (This item was deferred from the June 17, 2004 meeting.)
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying detailed plans and materials were provided this month in response to concerns raised at the June meeting. The new information showed elevations and noted the property is in the environs, not an actual historic district.
It was noted that wood shingles on the upper story were intended to match the pattern of the existing primary structure. The 6” OSB lower level siding would have an exposure slightly wider than the rest of the house. Mr. Adams said OSB siding is more stable that regular wood siding, because this pressed wood board is not subject to warping along the grain. It was suggested that the Commission would soon need to discuss the issue of siding materials, since alternate siding methods were becoming more popular.
Mr. Adams said the applicant intended to keep the original roofline if possible while working with the third story windows.
A garage foundation currently existed, but with no structure. The applicant intended to remove the existing foundation, creating a larger parking area to meet the parking requirement.
The Board of Zoning Appeals had conditioned removal of the existing external stairway, and the second-level door on the north elevation would be removed and replaced with a window. It was noted that the existing door had been placed to allow external access to the second floor. Installing a window in place of the existing door might be closer to the original design of the structure.
There was discussion about the applicant’s intent to use vinyl for all the windows. This was for maintenance and upkeep in what was proposed as a rental property. All existing windows would be replaced, but the work would be reversible and the window sizes would be changed only if necessary to meet egress requirements.
It was verified that the applicant intended to keep the existing roof, which was in good condition.
The Board of Zoning Appeals had also conditioned the deck with the 5’6” setback, rather than the 3’ originally requested. The existing front porch deck would be retained but the current lean would be corrected.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that egress conditions were set according to the amount of space a suited fireman would need to enter and exit the window.
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that Staff always encouraged the use of original materials, in this case the wood windows. It was understood that a less stringent review was applied to environs properties, so it was possible the Commission felt the vinyl windows were acceptable here. Ms. Zollner said she thought original wood materials would become more popular to retain as property owners found that, with proper maintenance, it would outlast alternative materials. It was noted that applicant’s primary concern behind the request for vinyl windows was maintenance and ease of use.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the property located at 1416 Tennessee, subject to the following conditions:
1. Complete construction documents with material notations to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator. If egress requirements necessitate changes in the window specifications, staff will review and approve modifications.
2. Appropriate landscaping will be installed to minimize the visual impact of the deck on the SE corner of the structure.
3. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
4. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and new construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Comm. Alstrom abstaining.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Alstrom explained he abstained from the vote because he did not understand why this property was not designated on the historic register. Staff responded that the property was never nominated.
ITEM NO. 4: 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.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ty Herron spoke on behalf of the property owners, pointing out the Commission had considered the existing house three months previously and approved renovation. It was noted at that time that renovation would be complicated and costly, and the property owner had received estimates supporting this idea. The property returned to the Commission this month with a request to demolish and replace the existing structure, based on a determination that rehabilitating the house was not economically feasible.
Chairman Marvin commented that, since reviewing the proposal a few months ago, the property seemed to have deteriorated even further. Mr. Herron replied that some interior demolition had resulted in some exterior changes, but (to his knowledge) structurally the house was no different.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick explained that, as a member of the Commission, he tried always to support the option of rehabilitation, but in this case he understood the state of the structure was beyond repair. The foundation and stabilizing elements of the house were too far deteriorated.
Ms. Zollner said that Staff rarely recommended demolition, but agreed that cost of repairing the damaged foundation and warped framing would be substantial.
It was noted that Staff’s conditions of approval did not include a requirement that the applicant submit cost estimates. Ms. Zollner asked the Commission to add such a condition if approval were granted.
It was noted that the applicant had supplied plans showing the proposed replacement building, which was important information to have. Vice-Chair Lodwick suggested the property owner use something other than “Z-Brick” for the brick veneer of the front porch, since this material tended not to last.
There was discussion about design details such as roof form and the cornice overhang and it was suggested these elements should be referred to the ARC. Regarding the roof form, Ms. Zollner explained Staff had been working with the applicant for several months, discussing environ review criteria and compatible design elements. She stated that, while the hipped form chosen was not extremely popular in the time frame represented by the neighborhood, it was historic. Other hipped roofs existed in the area, and Staff felt the proposal would be obviously new, but compatible with the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Sizemore said he could tell from the structural report that the house was in poor condition, and he relied on the opinion of his fellow Commissioners that this level of deterioration made saving the structure difficult.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Chairman Marvin to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 835 Alabama, based upon the determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage, or destroy any listed historic property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5 DR-06-46-04: 742 Massachusetts Street; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Robert Wilson the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts) and the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House (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 Historic District, Kansas Register of Historic Places, and the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Robert Wilson, property owner and licensed contractor, explained the upper story of the subject property had been modified to 4 apartments, apparently sometime in the 1950’s. The apartments had been empty for quite a while and he intended to rehabilitate the upper story to what he believed was its original state.
It was noted that the internal changes were not subject to historic review, but internal modifications necessitated external changes, which brought the project before the HRC. The primary external change was the storefront alteration, including the relocation of the existing double doors slightly off center and the addition of a single door to the south.
The applicant intended to change the existing 5 windows to 4 (double-hung), a design shown in a historic picture found at the Watkins Community Museum. The original header was in good condition and would be retained.
Bricks on the face of the building were also in good condition and would not be changed.
There was discussion about the applicant’s intent to differentiate the commercial use from the residential by using doors of different eras. Mr. Wilson explained his intent to reuse the existing double doors. The proposed glass single door was historic as well, although from a different time period. Both doorways would be recessed and would not be visible to each other.
Chairman Marvin was concerned about the mix of historic eras in close proximity and Comm. Alstrom felt strongly that wood doors should be used in the wood storefront instead of the existing aluminum ones.
The Commission discussed using a single door instead of a double one for the commercial use. Mr. Wilson said he had designed the storefront with double doors to accommodate the reuse of the existing doors, but he was not opposed to a single door if that was the Commission’s preference. It was suggested that double doors would serve the commercial use better, but would be more expensive that a single door. Vice-Chair Lodwick outlined the problems the property owner would encounter when trying to relocate the existing doors.
It was suggested the applicant choose a storefront design and submit detailed drawings of his proposal. Mr. Wilson explained his chosen design was presented in the materials and asked for direction on what additional detail was needed. The Commission felt the sketch representation and photographs provided were not adequate. After discussion, it was determined that to-scale elevations should be submitted for Staff review. It was noted that this condition was included in Staff’s recommendations and no additional condition was needed.
Ms. Zollner asked the Commission for direction regarding the doors. The Commission stated that the materials should be consistent, but had no specific direction beyond Comm. Alstrom’s concern that aluminum was not an appropriate material.
Mr. Wilson asked if the Commission had any concerns or questions regarding the rear of the building. The Commission discussed the multiple openings on the rear elevation, noting a new door would replace the existing back stair access.
It was noted that the existing rear wall was not part of the original structure. There is a section of The Downtown Design Guidelines regarding alley-facing facades. It was suggested Staff review of the design would be adequate.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Alstrom to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certified Local Government Review, and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 742 Massachusetts, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and that it does meet the language and intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Approval is 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.
3. 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 unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-06-47-04: 1041 Vermont Street; ATM Replacement and Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Wilson Darnell Mann P.A. for the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the Watkins Bank Building (1047 Massachusetts) and the Douglas County Courthouse (1100 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places; and the Downtown Historic District, Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
There was no one present to represent the applicant.
Ms. Zollner said Staff had several issues with the site plan that was also required with this project. Multiple changes were expected to address concerns regarding traffic stacking and turning movements. These changes might result in a revised plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the appropriateness of the proposed structure, noting this was an existing use and therefore could not be restricted. It was noted that the walk-up service window might be eliminated from the ultimate design. In this case, the property may request a new walk-up window on the other side of Vermont Street, which would be in the Downtown Historic District and would require a more stringent level of review.
It was discussed that any changes to the proposed design would be brought to Staff for review.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Chairman Marvin, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 1041 Vermont, based upon a determination that the proposed project does not encroach upon, damage or destroy the listed historic properties or their environs and that it meets the language and intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Approval was subject to the following condition:
1. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Administrator for approval prior to the commencement of any related work.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-06-48-04: 801 New Hampshire Street; Remodel and Exterior Stairs; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is located in the Downtown Historic District, Kansas Register of Historic Places, and within the environs of the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts Street), Kansas and Lawrence Registers of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the intent to open and use the uppermost level of the building. Currently the basement level and ground floor were the only levels in use. The upper level had been used in the past as a meeting room, but was now in state of disrepair. Most significantly, the floor joyce is sagging and will need to be shored up to make the level usable.
Mr. Adams said the condition of the windows currently covered with wood panels was not yet known. The property owner intended to replace windows on the north side of the building if they were in poor condition. Windows on the east side of the building were proposed for removal. These would be left vacant, with interior guardrails for safety. The City Fire Marshall had determined this proposal met the new non-smoking ordinance and would allow smoking on the upper level. Removable panels would be put in place over/in the window frame whenever smoking was not taking place.
The upper level would include a roof, walk-in cooler, storage and restrooms. Floor drains and special weatherproofing materials would be used to protect the structure from water damage.
It was noted that the building might be eligible for contributing status and therefore tax credit finding for repair of the false storefront were removed from the lower levels.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed concern about how the open window design might create long-term structural damage. One example was the possible seepage of water into the already-porous masonry from unprotected window sills. It was also pointed out that rain was not the only element that windows protected against. Heat, cold, humidity and ice could do structural damage as well.
It was established that a mechanical ventilation system would have to be used to meet building code requirements when the vacant windows were covered. It was stated again that the windows could not be covered if anyone was smoking.
The Commission was concerned that putting up the window covers was up to the discretion of the employees. Mr. Adams pointed out that the property owner was going to considerable expense to make the proposed renovations, so it was “in his best interest to take care of the building”.
It was noted that Staff recommended a condition requiring submission of full detailed drawings of the open window design and the cover panels, with review by Staff or the ARC if the Commission chose.
It was discussed that this proposal would be inappropriate for a residential structure in the environs, but review for commercial uses was somewhat different.
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that Staff had struggled with this review because this was a non-contributing structure. Staff would like to see the entire building rehabilitated, since it appeared to have several structural concerns such as bowed walls. The property owner had been provided with information on tax credits and it was discussed whether the removal of the windows as proposed would hinder the structure’s possible contributing status. It was noted that the proposal was reversible.
There was comparison made to the Commission’s decision on the Ecke Building, when the condition of the hidden structure was unknown. ARC review was applied once the state of the original structure was visible. It was suggested similar conditions be applied here for consistency.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Certified Local Government Review and Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 801 New Hampshire, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs, and that the project meets the language and intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide more detailed information on the proposed stairs, door, windows (including sill protection) and guardrails on the east elevation to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee prior to release of a building permit.
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. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
4. 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: L-04-01-04: Resolution recommending the designation of the Zinn-Burroughs House located at 1927 Learnard Avenue to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. Environs Definition for the Zinn-Burroughs House
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner asked the Commission to consider this item as two separate issues: the resolution itself and the associated environs definition.
Barbara Stein, 325 E. 19th Street, was not able to attend the meeting, but had asked Staff to express her opposition to the proposed designation and to being part of the environs of this property. Vice-Chair Lodwick said he understood property owner concerns about environs-level review for their properties, but the Commission’s charge was to weigh individual property concerns against the best interests of the community and the historic structure.
It was verified that another property owner mailing would be sent out after the Commission approved this resolution and the environs definition. Public comment would be taken when the City Commission considered the proposal.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Alstrom to approve HRC Resolution 2004-01, recommending designation of the Zinn-Burroughs House at 1927 Learnard Avenue to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Zollner explained she had not yet given the environs definition an adequate level of review. She would like additional time for further review before the issue was forwarded to the City Commission.
Staff showed pictures of the view from the structure in all directions, explaining the subject property was part of a platted subdivision, but the (developed) property immediately to the south was not platted.
In trying to create the environs definition, Staff took into consideration that the properties on Learnard appeared to have the most visual connection to the subject property and any exterior changes would impact the environs. Meanwhile, properties on 19th Street and Barker Avenue had virtually no visual connection to the Zinn-Burroughs House, but were part of the same platted subdivision. It was therefore important to retain the same neighborhood quality of that bungalow-type development.
The Barbara Stein property was located on the proposed environs map and it was established that there is no precedent for pulling a single property out of the center of the environs based on property owner objections.
PUBLIC COMMENT
James Grauerholz, property trustee had two questions for Staff that he would like noted as part of the record. He asked what opportunities were provided for property owners within the proposed environs to express their concerns and objections. Ms. Zollner explained that the nomination would go through the HRC and the City Commission. Written comment (including email) was accepted at any time in the process and Staff could be contacted by telephone as well. Written communications were put into the project file and forwarded as part of the Staff Report.
Opportunities for public comment were available at this meeting, at the following HRC meeting (when the environs definition would be considered again), and at the City Commission meeting.
Mr. Grauerholz referenced a member of the public who had expressed interest in this issue at the beginning of the meeting but had already left. He said he would have been interested to hear that person’s concerns. Ms. Zollner explained the man in question had received a notice letter for the hearing by mistake, since his property was not located within the proposed environs. He was, however, related to individuals who owned property within the proposed environs boundary.
Mr. Grauerholz asked what impact the property owner objections would have on the issue. Zollner replied that the City Commission was charged with determining whether the objection was weighty enough to warrant denial of the nomination, or if the historic significance of the property was of higher concern to the community.
Mr. Grauerholz stated his support for the nomination and expressed his hope that the environs definition would be approved quickly, allowing application for non-profit status for the subject property.
Vice-Chairman Lodwick thanked Mr. Graeurholz for the part he played in bringing Mr. Burroughs to Lawrence, saying Lawrence was richer because of it.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that all opposition to date had been directed to the environs, not the nomination.
It was discussed that Staff attempted to educate the public about the process and financial aid options (tax credits for rehabilitation). Staff stated that often property values increased around a newly designated historic structure, because the environs review requirement stabilized the neighborhood and restricted radical changes.
Staff explained that Chapter 22 of the Code spoke specifically about the environs and carried a presumption that projects in the environs would be approved unless it was found that the project had a significant negative impact on a historic property. The burden of proof in these matters lay with the city.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Chairman Marvin, seconded by Comm. Sizemore to direct Staff to continue research on the environs definition and email a revised definition to the Commission for comment. Comments would be integrated into the definition for Commission consideration, including public comment, at the August 2004 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 9: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the June 17, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for the Commission’s review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the June 17, 2004 regular meeting.
Staff referenced the recent ARC review of the proposed Smart Siding at 707 Tennessee. Following the ARC’s negative impression of this material and the Commission’s subsequent action (requiring wood siding), the applicant had contacted Staff and said cedar siding would be used.
A sample of the Smart Siding was available to look at, and it was suggested the Commission would have some challenging decision s in the future, as alternative siding materials became more popular.
The ARC met on July 12th at Quinton’s on Massachusetts Street on to review the roof, particularly the end panels that gave the roof a “massive look”. The ARC approved a revised, scaled down roof design with no end panels. Comm. Sizemore explained some layout changes were required, such as moving the stairs to the other side of the building for egress requirements and adding an 8’ high guardrail for safety concerns. The ARC had not felt these changes were significant to the intent of the Commission’s approval.
Comm. Alstrom expressed concern about spillover lighting with the deck requests that were becoming more frequent. It was discussed that this environmental issue was beyond the Commission’s scope of review and was considered at the site plan stage of many projects.
Comm. Alstrom was also concerned about the lighting fixtures proposed for the Quinton’s project, which included anachronistic, modern-style ceiling fans. It was suggested that his level of detail was also not within the purview of the Commission.
Administrative Reviews
DR-06-45-04: 840 Connecticut Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon, Inc. for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the St. Luke African Methodist Episcopal Church (900 New York Street) and the North Rhode Island Historic District, Kansas Register of Historic Places.
DR-06-49-04: 1108 Tennessee Street; Garage Renovation; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Mike Goans for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Dr. Frederick Morse House (1041 Tennessee), National and Lawrence Register of Historic Places, the Downtown Historic District, Kansas Register of Historic Places, and the Oread Historic District, Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Chairman Marvin to approve the Administrative Reviews as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since June 17, 2004.
There were no BZA requests for the Commission to review.
D. General public comment.
No member of the public made any additional comments.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
Comm. Sizemore asked the Commission to look over the information about siding alternatives with the purpose of discussing the issue at a later date. He asked if Staff had gotten any input from the State or National Historic Boards, feeling it would be inappropriate to set local guidelines without knowing the opinions of these regulatory bodies. Ms. Zollner said that no official statement had been made, but alternative siding materials were being allowed on environs properties statewide. It was agreed that he ARC would discuss siding materials (specifically “sheet goods”) and bring a recommendation to the full Commission.
Comm. Alstrom said he was not pleased with the level and type of information provided by the applicant for the project at 742 Massachusetts (agenda Item 5). He said he did not want to turn the Commission into a design review board, but he would like the Commission’s “powers” expanded so they could request and review elevations for entire blocks, in cases where an entirely new structure was being inserted into an existing neighborhood. Comm. Dean said he thought the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards provided adequate direction on dealing with infill and redevelopment. The Commission discussed “micromanaging design” vs. neighborhood protection.
ADJOURN – 10:06 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.