Historic resources commission
Action Summary DRAFT
March 16, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present: Veatch, Sizemore, Alstrom, Hickam, Marvin,
Staff present: Zollner ______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: Action summary
One revision was requested, attributing comments to Staff instead of Comm. Marvin.
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Marvin to approve the minutes of the February 23, 2006 meeting as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 2: CoMMUNICATIONS
Response form legal dept 1146 Miss on agenda tonight
NO abstentions
ITEM NO. 3: DR-12-110-05: 429 Indiana Street; Demolition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by William Mumford and Kristi Kesinger, property owners of record. The property is located in the environs of the Pinckney I Historic District and the Pinckney II Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Noted this was deferred from Feb meeting. Showed picts of all elevations.
Update – working contact woi th current owner. Hist: cited for code violations, CC said repair or remove by March 21st.
NR said was caught in estate problems when current owners did not have full control – now they do. They do not anticipate repairing. STfaf not able to doi structural analysis or go inside, asked NR, inmspector has not been inside, notations from exterior.,
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Kristi Kesinger, property owner, house in husbands parents name nboth deceased, e had lived there prior to getting sick. To get control had to go through probate with 11 siblings,. Want to demolish, plans were to remodel, not goping to happen – falling apart.
Sven arrivied at 7:05/
Too much family illness. Trying to selel property has on interested in house but looked and said never moind. Want to sell clean lot to let next owner build to HRC specs.
Inside has been stripped except back kitchen. Ceilings have fallen to floor. No problem with letting staff in except timing.,
Put in new windows in some places, had been wanting to preserve b.c had been in family but it is trashed beyond what we can handle for repair.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Concern about additions separating. Father was a carpenter – kept adding on pieces – obviously not a good carpenter.
If sold, likely would hear same request from new owner.
March 21st deadline for action – seems unlikely repair will be decided upon, how doe sthat effect us? Anticipate will want to have minutes and your decision to take into consideration. Based on talks with Code enforcement, think likely will order removal which will be an appeal of this owner of HRC’s decision (if you vote to repair)
In professional opinion, think it unlikely CC will opt to hold up rule to repair.
Can see why staff would be against without internal tour and other info.
Sympathize with applicant but try to keep precedent of what will replace. Also not having comparison estimates.
If HRC denies, just goes to CC hearing? If the applicant appeals – it is already on the CC agenda – think would be made at same time but separate actions.
Sven – approve demolition of all except what’s sitting in original stoine foundation. Do think that would meet the repaiur or remove order and would end up with same CC decision.
Staff said the HRC has set a firm precedent of requiring comparison costs. They have approved demo in past with condition that staff revoew that info in cases of extreme damage
Don’t think applicant unduly put out by our denial (as a technicality) beucase they are going to CC anyway and will likely get what they want.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Antle, seconded byHickam to deny the Certified Local Government
Review for the project at 429 Indiana Street, based on concerns of precedent
and lack of information as discussed.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-01-05-06: 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and Massachusetts Street; Communications Antennas; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Lawrence Freenet for the property owner of record. The property is located in Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is in the environs of the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts) and the Hannah Building (933 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Deferred from Fbryuary meeting, CC received concerns as part of cent and told staff to investigate and return findings to them to make more diercetion to HRC.
Staff recommend deferral – any idea when will be coming back? Maybe next week? April meeting?
Hard job have to delay but have to.
GH/AM 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-01-08-06: 1136 Mississippi Street; New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District and the Jane A. Snow Residence (706 W. 12th), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Deferred from Feb meeting – letter from Attorney for the City, Jerry Cooley, showed pics of the subject property from various angles. Also pics of houses in the district, notice applicant concerned that other curb cuts existing.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Who is this? Shoied depiction of house design I have approved permit for – trying to settle parking in rear. Now thinking oif eliminating from the project – it wil be visible from about any location on the listed property.
Approved plan had a lot of retaining wall that I think may detract a lot from view. Now maybe move aprking in front. Talked about curb cuts in district. Says every house on 12 street has cut with off street parking.
Staff expressed concerns that I hope redesign addresses – how house is set further back, and has more sceening to make retaining walls less visoible.
Ask you to consider aesthetics opf approved plan vs. thuis redesign and I’m trying to work with staff and there are curb cuts existing.
Elevation difference of about 4’ between 11th street and proposed parking area. Revised curb cut would be how wide? About 15’ other design was 26’ (max)
SA – concerned about build to line. Where was it with old design vs. this one. ( the main façade not the steps. Was 8’ further to the east. SA _ would like to see it line up with adjacent buildings. Trynig to keep parking setbacks within approved so would not need another variance. With rear parking are keeps build to more in line.
Verify comparing plan apprived by HRC with revision of drawing given to HRC on Monday.
AM – retaining wall was not a problem to HRC or would not have approved it. Intent was preserving façade streetscape instead of parking
If you still want that I can build it but not what I’d like to do. Yes its already approved by HRC but I’m asking for a change.
Why does there even need to be a retaining wall that high? Grade from Indiana is very steep – need sto be that high to offset access slope.
Think that’s whyt we said no the curb cut and said to put the parking in the back from last tie., have problem with changing streetscape and moving house so far out of line with the other houses.seen frequently with every ball game and every trip to campus.
Street scape = onl three houses – makes each one more obvious and
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dennis Brown, LPA, said the applicant rying to hard to make something fit challenging lot that does not fit., second time here -0 several forBZA. Wish house lostr could be replaced with anouth house not a multiple living struictuire. If applicant is unwilling to make a single home – HRC and BZA shoul not bend rule sto accommodate imposing project.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
GH – neighborhood perspective on this area,
Like new one better – looks better but does not mean ut meets the guidelines. Think hiding arking in reara has happened on at least one other lot in area, with right screening in place probably new design would look better than retaining wall but we are dealing within guildeines and precedence.
JA _ sacrifice front or back? Oinclined to stick with previsou position of keeping front streetscape and sacrificing back.
MS – new design takes more effort to make this one look pretty – retaining wall could also hide if this care was taken – stoinework and landscaping. Think front more important.
ACTION TAKEN
MV/ deny proposal finging does encroach upon, findings form
staff repoiret JA second. 5-1 GH opposed.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-01-13-06 1040 Vermont Street; Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Sabatini Architects Inc., for the property owners of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, Watkins Bank (1047 Massachusetts), and the Douglas County Courthouse (1100 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Showed pics around the subject – rehab into mixed use structure – office and residential in DT and conserbation ovrrlat dist.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Not present – talked with them about it – was deferred from Feb – asked to put it back oin and then did not hear from them again.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
SA _ modern structure undergoing facelift for marketing – was a mercantile building display oriented now theme continuing with third version of same building – feel conform to intent of guidelines – facelift that ois not changing nature of building.
Staff concerned with parking structure. SA – except the garage because that is not a facelift that is a new structure. Meant the main structure.
Minor alterations that could bring it into compliance – have you talkje dto them? Talked about bringing the garage into the main structure but have not talked about leaving off the stucco which is strictly against guidelines.
Not in favor of removing balconies – they feel important part of the project.
SA – don’t know that DT context will accept a garage but support rest of it, might ask to split the approval. Not really appropriate without the applicant here to discuss it. Condition it to go to ARC toi iscuss garage.
JA – I would support deferral or denial in the applicant’s absence.
Let them know we will contiunue to defer untiul they show up?
ACTION TAKEN
JA/ AM defer to April
6-0
ITEM NO. 7: DR-02-14-06: 716 Mississippi Street; New Construction of Ancillary Structure; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by John Preis, property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
New construction located in evirons or OWL district showed main structure and
Addition approved last year replacing existing porch of similr config – showed where proposed new garage will go.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Who? Mention apron seen in pics used to be fully concrete – used to be a garage that was torn down before I bought – in sense a replacement but no idea what it looked like before. Bought 2 years ago with intent of rehabbing. Garage design replicate main structure in all respects. Wood siding? Would like to use hardy siding – more cost effective and looks very similar once paineted _smooth hardy – more realistic once painted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Environs seems reasonable
AM – staff rec’d doe sthat say we would need a complete materials list? Typo – can send to HRA.
ACTION TAKEN
MS – approve with changes to conditions as discussed. GH second. 6-0.
ITEM NO. 8: DR-02-15-06: Intersection of 13th & Oread; Gateway Entrance; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Design and Construction Management, The University of Kansas, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District, Spooner Hall (1135-45 Louisiana), Dyche Hall (1031 Oread), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
New construction opf gateway entrance at the subject intersection. In environs of 3 litsed properties.,
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jim Long, Univ of KS, chair KUPB, march 6th we met and voted in favor. Specifically found not encroached on listed porpertyes – you have meeting minute s- cross jurisdictional review.
Steve Cannell here to present proposal. Ran through KUPB analysis. On identical footprint of existing kiosk.
Feel nomination more applicabnle to hoimes and structures – character of buildings. Views key component – limited from Hancock to here.
Addressing mainly Hancock feeling that is city’s main concern.
Proposed structure uses materuials similar in palate to Kansas Union nearby. Rendition of scale.
Three keye elements of invirins review – demo of existing booth and new construction and sinage. Current consistent with campus wayfinding siagnage but of more modern design.
Patterned concrete around center island with columnar signage with water feature and landscape planetrs.
Staff felt beneficial that brick and concrete paveing system in front of union and down street is proposed to be continued as part of this project.
Materaials more consistent with historic materuials as well as other campus buildings.
Demo of traffic booth and new construction improve as more compatible woith envirins.,
New traffic booth going? Just to south of 14th street and Jayhawk Blvd. no design finalized yet – another element will have to address in future.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Nicely complements union and area, curious how this related to Dykes Tower in background. Stonr relationship between the two towers from street level. Hope this does not deract from that. Small enough scale doubt it wll. Current booth about 8.5-9’ tall.
ACTION TAKEN
GH/ approve per staff MV second 6-0
ITEM NO. 9: DR-02-16-06: 1425 Tennessee Street; Site Modifications & Accessory Structure; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Helix Architecture for the property owner of record. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Shosed pics – site modifications and accessory structitre - – is listed as Usher House.
Hard yo b=get good pic of changes that exist and greespace where new accessory will go.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bruce Snieder, US Architecture, alumni approached us to do commemorative to two alums who died. Develop area as shelter and rec area including fire pit. BIG-FAT-NO!!
Keep as far form other existing as possible.
Design of shelter based on elements of primary, wood construction, columns and detailing, similar paint and roofing.
Note issue of reducing impervious surface from what is now proposed. Wil have to reduce to get within cide code. Take out about 500 square feet – will change design and location.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Betty Alderson, Lawrence resident, first I saw – looks like a fairgrounds – not what I think of in this area – note they use dto have a fire pit here – concernbed about loss of greenspace but glad talking about reducing and moving west – may have to provide trench draining to guide water.
Intrusion into greenspace it biggest concern
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
MS – think rendering makes addition seem closer to street than will be in reality, especially oif move westward. Got perspective from live photos.
This is a listed property, tend to be more rigorous – not as much problem with fire pit but size and shape of covered structure – change ability to view oprimary luitesd from the street.
Proposed picnic shelter to be about 15’ back from front elevation of the house in current drawings, possible wil move even further.
Any discussion to putting to west of BBall court? Open patio and landscaping different experience
Guessed at changes to meet pervious surface maximums. To prevent providing onside detention., maybe defer until we can look at changed drawings. Any other issues that would want to address at that time?
Consider ways to reduce the visual impact of the pavilion overtaking that of the primary structure. Note that renderings not realistic view of property from actual street or property line.
Drew comparison to other projects trying to get similar feel or use.
Discussed that standards say must be compatible but this is compatible to house and sven wants compatible with porch
National reg property has already gone under LOTS of changes over the year., IF it were a private residence may look at differently but would also be more inatc to original structure.
GH – achieving most important things by moving back, dealing with drainage and pervious surface – reduced view from street.
Landscape screening ebenfot structure with sense of enclosure while further blocking views.
ACTION TAKEN
GH/approve with added condition final review ARC (change cond. 2) SA second 6-0.
ITEM NO. 10: DR-02-17-06: 820 Ohio Street; Demolition and New Construction of Ancillary Structure; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Dan Riedemann for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Reviewed in 2005, now under contrcution. Previous burned – new plans that did not include garage at that time, now want to demolish exoisting ancillary and replace witrh garage.
Lots of discussion about this garage – info tried to look at Sanborn Maps – does not appear to be structure some public thought it was. Probably historoic but no onger hhas context w/o original structure.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dan Riedemann, spoke on behalf of property owner. Hoping would lose in storm, no luck. Problem with size and no footing – foundation caving in on west, and framing all 2 X 4 spaced on 4’ centers. When bought it could not wait to find what was under the metal – there’s just 2X 4’s. no sheathing – just metal on wood – leaning. It’s a mess.
Designed new garage to fit the new project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dennis Brown, LPA, I spoke when heard before. Someone I respected said his research showed was one of original garages in community – have not heard back from him to my request for verification. Appreciate staff’s work and Dan let me inside to see it – withdraw opostionb to demo of ancillary.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Approve per staff JA/ MV 6-0
ITEM NO. 11: DR-02-18-06: 805 Ohio Street; Garage Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Dan Riedemann for the property owner of record. The property is located in the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Contrinuting within listed district.
Showed subject property and elevations on garage propose d for remadol. UPR for property to help with rehab – owner allowed to do apartments in building to finance rehab. Was in VERY poor condition but though tt o be highly sig building to city – CC allowed MF use although not allowed in this zoning to help finance saving building.
UPR still in function, one UPR condition was to do something with this garage – not compatible with distrct or primary structure. Original intent replace with another garage. Trying to meet milestone conditions, mke this fit better = changes proposed tonight.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dan Riedemann was present to respooind to questions on behalf of the applicant. Think garage built in 1974. not in bad shape – good structure but next to wrong building. Primary deliberately built w/o ancillary structure – did not want to hold animals captive – (garegs/stable/carriage house). Make it blend more into area. Looking an sinlge sliding door to accommodate contractor vehicle.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff lists concern that the proposal does not meet the intent of the UPR. Believe meets guidelines but not sure changes make it blend in neighborhood any better _ is that HRC decision to make? We don’t review UPR’s. this did have to go through HRC PC and CC, use issues dealt with by PC and CC, design under HRC.
Cond from staff #4 to prevent conflicts with other planning stages going concurrently.
Noted again that this is a listed as a contributing struicture to the OWL district.
Dan – UPR text is quite vague – was never a tear down rebuild in our mind.
Challenge for staff – not sure can make it more compatible – its so obviously a different form for match the ing primary. Changes help blend? Dopnt know but does meet standards. Plus how much divert finding and attention from main rehab.
Staff asks for specific comment on making it blend better so can use as comment in later reviews
Staff ok with keeping asphalt roof instead of metal. Dan says would like to do slate or heavy textured. Don’t care what kind of asphalt and will draw less attention fron street – highly visible from insde strcture.,
ACTION TAKEN
GH/ approve per staff add comment that proposed changes exclusive of metal roof apper to make it blend better with neighborhood and make moiré coimpatible with proimary streute, MV second.
ARC? HRA instead 6-0
ITEM NO. 12: DR-02-23-06: Located W. of N. Michigan Street & S. of I-70; Communications Tower; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Judge Nelson T. Stephens Residence (340 N. Michigan), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff working with Slective Site consuiltantrs to move proposed location to western edge of property well outside 500 notifoication bounhdary – reducting ipact on hist property .
Current change not informed by 5pm today.
Property owner of the listed property has expressed significant concerns about placement in views of listed.
will require a UPR, because or residential neighborhood south and histiruic – planning staff suggested another site on other side of KTA. Applicant has not responded to that rec’d.
can we defer until we get more info on possibly moving?
Cell towers are hard to review for HRC, proposed site for this is barely within 500 noitice boundary – clear line of sight? Is a llibne of sight – how clear depends on where you area.
SHPO review cell towers more in the county – their POV meets enviroins and also 106 review. If this went to the state they would have approved as presented. If decision is to place elsewhere – would you have to review again? No because will be out of our purview on KTA land.
Although know historic owner is opposed – cannotr identify how it damages environs or enracohes. That site is already fairly unsightly and is industrial use. Staff had trouble finding how tower impacts and harms listed with large visual barrier of N. Michigan between.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
No one was present to speak on behalf of the applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Seems like applicant should be willing to move to west but not sure would make much difference visually – still a tower.
Staff preference for moving is strcutrure nd fenced area going along with it are move obscured from view at listed property.
Strict analysis probably does meet standards. Although we don’t particularly want – is it legitimate to deny. They are not here to answer questions – we defer a lot when applicant is not here to respond.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Antle, seconded by Veatch to defer the item to the April 2006 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM No. 13: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the February 23, 2006 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permit applications for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the February 23, 2006 regular meeting.
ARC met to discuss 1420 NY – applicants alterations with exception of porch did not effect envirins but agree dto change porch. Alterations proposed fussy for original plain structure0 think he agreed to simplify details at least on foremost part of accessory. As envoiroins rdeview was aceptible solution.
Were leaning toward Queen Anne or Painted Lady style which does not fit that house. We don’t control color.
Administrative Reviews
DR-12-104-05: 716½ B Massachusetts Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Farm Fresh Graphics 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.
DR-02-19-06: 1501 Pennsylvania Street; Driveway Removal; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence for the property owner of record. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
DR-02-20-06: 806 Massachusetts Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owners of record. The property is a non-contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is in the environs of the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places and the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
DR-02-22-06: 846A Illinois Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Star Signs and Graphics for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
Did not give suammries this time – what do you think – do you still want to get them. If one has oisues get staff report. Use dto get staff summary – effort to streamline – not wrting full staff report not full analysis. Would like to get picture but fuill report not necessarily.
Admin reviews should be so B & W – just a pic and summary. Able to pull an item off of admin review if more discussion seems warranted.
Summary, descrioption, analysis and recod’ and pic.
ACTION TAKEN
GH/confirm staff recopdmmendations., MV 6-0
DR-02-21-06: 1008 Massachusetts Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owners of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, North Rhode Island Historic District, English Lutheran Church (1040 New Hampshire), Watkins Bank Building (1047 Massachusetts Street), National Register of Historic Places and the Shalor Eldridge House (945 Rhode Island) Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
AM – recuse
Staff report initially for denial – applicant appealed that decisiohn to ad hoc committee for DTDG’s, applicant pleasded case and committee decision that sign doies NOT meet DTYDG, applicant;s decision to make cabinet bfdore getting permit influnced decision to make an appeal b.c subway had a similar sign here less than thre years ago, owner or property and business trying to wr=-okr out so not appealed to CC, 2 of 3 in ad hoc approived newest design, hope can come back as admin next month.
Staff suggetses takjing no action – so done.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since February 23, 2006.
1136 Mississippi – request for no parking. Item 2 from toinight
D. General public comment.
none
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members
a. Historic Preservation Week/Month and Preservation Conference
Conf may 4-6, Joanlee Hernely coordinator – trying to get oirganized. Websit e- online registration jthriugh chamble, Key note Don____ econ of HP
FIN past have asked mayor to declare hist preservation week or month – will need to ask form HRC – staf would prepare proclamation and ask him to make that happen will go well with conference. Make it so. Betty said missed proclamations last few years b.c lpa used to be the ones who asked for it. Got lost. Ask LPA if they want to co-sponsor.
Get summer intern to take on older projects. – another joint committee.
Identify structiuires that should be listed but are not.
Staff – at elections reform committees – hope to have ful commission at that time.
ADJOURN – 10:00 p.m.