HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION
ACTION SUMMARY
September 15, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present: Alstrom, Marvin, Antle, Veatch, McKenzie and Hickam
Staff present: Zollner, Miller and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: Action summary
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. Antle to approve the August 2005 action summary as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 2: CoMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 3: DR-08-60-05: 1029 New York Street; Demolition and New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Pete Laufer, the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed photographs of the subject property, including details of the south porch and north elevation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Pete Laufer, applicant, said he lived near the subject property and had purchased it with the intent of restoring the property and selling it to an owner occupant with a new 2-story rear addition. He said he appreciated the East Lawrence neighborhood and liked to keep older homes in the area out of the rental cycle.
Mr. Laufer explained restoring the existing section of the structure would require a close to complete demolition of the section because of extensive damage and structural failure of the existing addition. He clarified that the relevant section was one of two failing additions to the original structure.
Mr. Laufer spoke about the neighborhood as an area characterized by vernacular architecture, filled with add-on sections that were often of lower quality construction than the original buildings.
Mr. Laufer said it was his understanding that the North Rhode Island Historic District was created to discourage the Downtown area from encroaching into the neighborhood. However, the environs restrictions made projects in the area difficult to achieve.
Mr. Laufer showed additional pictures of failing sections in the rear (add on) portion of the home and provided extensive details about the estimated cost of repair/rehabilitation (~$53,000) vs. replacement in kind (1-story ~$20,000) and 2-story as proposed (~$25,000).
The applicant explained his proposal to replace the existing 1-story section with a 2-story addition to extend the life and use of the historic property. He hoped to keep the home as an owner-occupied residence, keeping it out of the rental cycle and reducing the potential for demolition by neglect.
The Commission agreed with Staff’s assessment that it would be a substantial burden to the applicant to repair the existing structure instead of replacement and were prepared to approve demolition as proposed. However, the Commission had significant concern about the proposed 2-story addition in place of the existing 1-story section. Primarily, the Commission agreed with Staff that the provided information about the proposed new construction was not adequate and more detailed drawings would be needed before the addition could be considered.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed appreciation for the applicant’s wish to extend the life the structure and create a new addition that would compliment the neighborhood. They were also impressed by the amount of work the applicant had put into preparing cost estimate data.
The Commission listed specific details they would like to see on the new drawings:
Mr. Laufer said designing the addition according to the identified criteria would be more expensive. He understood this was not a typical consideration of the Commission but said it should be recognized as an influential factor. Comm. Alstrom spoke about tax credits and other financial aid options that might be available if the applicant chose to list the subject property.
There was discussion about approving the proposal in concept and leaving the review of revised drawings and details to the ARC. Staff explained how the applicant would work with Staff to compile appropriate documentation prior to meeting with the ARC.
Comm. Alstrom said that, as half of the ARC, he did not feel the proposal was complete enough to approve in concept. The level of detail yet to be provided was higher than was normally left to ARC for review. Comm. Hickam read into the record the written comments submitted by Comm. Sizemore (the other member of the ARC) which echoed Comm. Alstrom’s concerns.
The rear of the structure, though possibly significant in its own right, seems atypical for the environs of the N. Rhode Island district, and thus possibly not a character-defining feature of the environs. HOWEVER, a two-story addition could have a significant impact on the overall massing of the structure, which in turn could impact the environs of the NRI district. Careful consideration and attention to detailing should be encouraged of the applicant so as to preserve as much of the original structure as possible.
Plans and elevations are unacceptable as submitted. I would concur that at a minimum, differentiation from the existing structure is required. Even though this is an environs review, the existing structure is significant enough to warrant a slightly more critical evaluation of the proposed addition. In my opinion, the addition should be designed as a secondary massing to the original structure. The demolition of the one-story addition is regrettable, but if allowed, the new two-story addition should have the same “secondary feeling” as the original one-story, and not as an extension of the primary structure as currently designed.
I support staff recommendations in approval of the project with the conditions stated. I do not recommend approval without revised plans being submitted for review by the ARC.
It was discussed that the applicant may be asked to return in October with revised drawings showing detail as directed. It was noted that the Commission did not typically approve demolition without an accompanying proposal for new construction. It was suggested that this case may be an exception and approval of the demolition portion of the request might be appropriate at this time.
It was established that the level of information being requested would also be required to obtain a building permit form the Neighborhood Resources Department, so the applicant’s efforts would not be duplicative.
It was verified that the applicant intended to retain the same approximate footprint for the new construction, but the existing foundation was failing and would have to be removed.
Staff requested the Commission apply conditions as listed in the Staff Report if they chose to approve demolition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Hickam to approve the Certified Local Government Review for demolition of the existing rear 1-story addition at 1029 New York Street, based on a determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant work with Staff to prepare complete construction documents with material notations as discussed to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Commission; and
2. The property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-08-62-05: 829 Massachusetts Street; Storefront Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owners of record. The property is listed as a non-contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is in the environs of the Carnegie Library (200 W. 9th) and the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed photographs of the east elevation of the subject property along Massachusetts Street.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the proposal to replace a portion of the storefront. He said he understood Staff’s concern that the entire storefront was not proposed for the remodel, but this request was made by the property tenant and the property owner had stated he was not interested in pursuing and overall remodel.
Mr. Werner said he agreed with Staff’s remarks about the transom. He said the proposed project was the best situation that could be attained at this time. He hoped the property owner would come to town eventually and see the importance of a complete storefront remodel to make the building marketable in the Downtown area.
It was established that the applicant had prepared a set of revised drawings that Staff said adequately addresses the concerns identified in the Staff Report about the transom. It was again noted that Mr. Werner, as well as the Commission would like to see the entire façade rehabilitated, perhaps as a tax credit program.
Comm. Hickam read Comm. Sizemore’s written comments into the record:
The revisions per the 9/14/05 fax appear to me to address staff’s concerns over the lack of the transom. The removal of the glazed brick on either side of the doors is a definite improvement as well. My questions would concern the proportions of the storefront to the transom glass – it appears to be similar to the current entry, but would question how it relates to other downtown buildings and the guidelines.
Regardless, as a non-historic entry on a non-contributing building, I feel the applicant’s revised plans meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as well as the Downtown Design Guidelines, and would recommend approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff commented on the typical proportions of the 3-part storefront system seen in Downtown. Ms. Zollner said it was difficult to get ideal proportions with a partial rehabilitation, but the revised drawings were closer to the desired dimensions.
It was noted that this was a non-contributing structure and less stringent standards might be applied.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Antle, seconded by Comm. Marvin to approve the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 829 Massachusetts Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was 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 property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition and new construction begin.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-08-64-05: 820 Ohio Street; New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Dan Riedemann, the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
Comm. Alstrom indicated he would abstain from the vote but would not recuse himself.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed photographs of the subject property, identifying views that would be elevations of the now-demolished primary structure. Elevations were shown of the existing ancillary structure.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dan Riedemann, applicant, introduced the contract purchaser and architect for the project. He outlined their intent to construct a new residence on the subject lot. He said there was not a lot of project detail provided at this time, but the applicant’s wished to move ahead, possibly with approval of the concept design, to break ground before winter.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Hickam read comments from Comm. Sizemore into the record.
As with the New York Property earlier on the agenda, I believe there should be a more critical evaluation of this proposal, due primarily to it’s proximity to the Old West District.
One of the really nice things about the Old West District and it’s environs, is the relatively high level of craft. Most structures in, and around the district, were built at a time in history when there was a strong understanding of things like proportion, scale, massing, detailing and craftsmanship. The structures in and around Old West have set the bar relatively high. Because this property is in the immediate environs of Old West, there is a good chance this project will impact the district
Like the New York project earlier, the plans and elevations are unacceptable. Looking beyond presentation, I have serious concerns with the following details, which in my opinion, may not be in harmony with the Old West environs:
Unfortunately, the proposal as presented does not convey that the applicant has considered these issues, and their possible adverse affects on the district.
I am at a disadvantage, not being able to visit the area, and make a determination as to whether this building would generally fit in with the surrounding buildings...So:
A. If it is generally felt that the building will fit in with its neighbors, I support staff recommendations in approval of the project with the conditions stated. I do not recommend approval without revised plans being submitted for review by the ARC.
B. If it is generally felt that the building will not fit in with its neighbors, I would support a denial of the proposal, based on the findings that the scale, massing, and detailing of the proposed building is not in harmony with the environs of the district, and as such, does encroach upon the historic integrity of the Old West historic district.
Mr. Reidemann provided information about the existing ancillary building, which was proposed for demolition with this project. A new 1-story 20’ X 22’ garage was proposed on the site of the existing 12’ X 12’ ancillary structure.
The applicant said he did not think the existing ancillary structure was the one identified on Sanborn maps because of the materials and method of construction. He said anyone visiting the site would agree there was nothing of value or historic significance in the metal siding and bare 2’ X 4’ lumber than constituted the entire structure.
Mr. Reidemann explained the rationale behind the semi-Italianate style chosen for the proposal. He said a true Italianate form had been mixed with modern elements to make clear this was new construction. He said Comm. Sizemore’s concerns about appearance would be dealt with by final, to-scale construction drawings.
There was discussion about the size of the proposed structure and concerns that it would be too large for the neighborhood and/or its own lot. Mr. Riedemann said this neighborhood was characterized by homes of varying sizes, both smaller and larger than the one proposed.
Angel Martinez, architect, commented again on the nature of Italianate architecture and its suitability in this neighborhood.
There was discussion about the number of windows proposed for the north elevation vs. the south. Mr. Martinez said several windows were proposed for the south elevation to take advantage of natural lighting. The north elevation had fewer windows to limit connection to the existing residence to the north. It was clarified that the current drawings were conceptual and the applicant agreed more work was needed on design and composition.
New drawings were presented with some redesign work already done. It was verified that Staff had not yet seen these new drawings.
Comm. Alstrom responded to questioning that he agreed with some, but not all, of Comm. Sizemore’s comments. He said he would be comfortable approving the project in concept, based on the drawings just presented, and reviewing future design drawings through the ARC.
Comm. Hickam said this neighborhood did have an eclectic mix of styles and the newly-presented drawings showed a better balance of window openings and “fit” for the lot.
It was established that Hardi-plank had been approved as an alternate siding material for environs properties in the past and this element could be further reviewed by the ARC.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 820 Ohio Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents, with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee 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.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Comm. Alstrom abstaining
ITEM No. 6: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the August 18, 2005 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee since the August 18, 2005 regular meeting.
The ARC members had met separately with Staff, but had agreed upon final construction documents for 736 Mississippi. The final proposal did not have front-facing garages and did have a front porch with simplified windows and revised roof details.
C. Administrative Reviews
DR-12-118-04: 700 Massachusetts Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Star Signs and Graphics, Inc. for the property owners of record. The property is a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is in the environs of the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts) and Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
DR-05-35-05: 201-209 W. 8th Street; Sidewalk Modifications; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is listed as a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
DR-06-43-05: 1008 Massachusetts; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Sign-a-Rama for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, Watkins Bank (1047 Massachusetts), English Lutheran Church (1040 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places, and the Shalor Eldridge Residence (945 Rhode Island), Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
DR-07-51-05: 1035 Massachusetts; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Gregory Keenan for the property owner of record. The property is listed as a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
DR-08-58-05: 317 N. 2nd Street; Temporary Use Permit; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jeff Fortier for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Union Pacific Depot (402 N. 2nd), Kansas Register of Historic Places.
DR-08-59-05: 607 Louisiana Street; Porch Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Lance Adams, the property owner of record. The property is listed as a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
DR-08-61-05: 733 New Hampshire Street; Awning; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Phillip Rodrigues for the property owner of record. The property is listed as a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District. The property is also located in the environs of the Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts) and the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
DR-08-63-05: 1011 Vermont Street; HVAC Improvements; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Cloud Heating and Air Conditioning for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District and Watkins Bank (1047 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Hickam,
seconded by Comm. Antle to approve all Administrative Reviews as presented by
Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
D. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since August 18, 2005
There were no BZA issues for discussion.
E. General public comment
Dennis Brown, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, informed the Commission of a Historic Tour of Kansas University led by Henry Fortunato, Project Director of the KU History Project. This tour would be held as part of LPA’s annual meeting, to be held from 4-6 p.m. on October 16, 2005 in the English Room of the Kansas Union.
F. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
ADJOURN – 9:50 p.m.