Action Summary
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present:
Meyer, Sizemore, Marvin, Veatch, Antle, Alstrom and Hickam
Staff present: Zollner,
Wagner and Olson
_______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: ACTION SUMMARY
Two typographical errors were noted.
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Veatch to approve the
Motion carried 6-1 with Antle
abstaining.
ITEM NO. 2: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 3: DR-05-48-06 841
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of the empty lot from multiple
viewpoints, from the subject property toward the listed property, and streetscape
views in both directions. Examples were
also shown of existing area structures. Ms. Zollner responded to questioning
that there was not a clear line of sight between the subject property and the
listed property.
Staff provided an aerial and footprint map of the
neighborhood, noting the environs’ boundary line.
Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to
conditions listed in the staff report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bo March spoke on behalf of the applicants, explaining that
they intended to maintain their current residence across the street from the
subject property. Mr. March said there
had been discussions of using the property for a 6-plex residence, and the
applicants had purchased the property to prevent a multi-family use from
occurring. Mr. March explained that the
property owners have a vested interest in maintaining the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. March said the applicants felt the proposed materials are
acceptable and they hoped to eliminate any possible conditions requiring them
to change the materials. There was
discussion about changes to the proposal made after the Staff Report and shown
in tonight’s revised drawings, including:
There was discussion about changing the garage door design
from one large door to two separate doors, or an alternate door design that
gave the visual impression of two doors.
Mr. March said the applicant would be amenable to this change if the
Commission felt it was important. He
noted that the neighborhood contained a variety of garage doors styles, with no
one predominant style.
It was suggested that the subject property should honor the
18’ build-to line set throughout the rest of the block. It was noted that this would require a
variance because the front yard setback in this zoning district is 25’. Mr. March explained that the current design
used extra setbacks and slightly skewed building orientation to minimize the
impact of the busy intersection (on the residence).
Commissioner Alstrom spoke about the importance of
fenestration patterns and window materials.
He said the proposed aluminum clad windows were typically single-hung,
which he did not find compatible with the environs. Mr. March said the aluminum clad windows had
been chosen because they would not require aluminum storm windows. Ms. Zollner noted that the Commission had
approved the use of aluminum clad windows in the environs in previous cases.
Mr. March explained how the fenestration pattern and roof
line were designed to be a loose interpretation of unique elements found in the
listed property. He responded to
questioning that the applicant would be willing to apply a 25’ setback on the east
elevation of the property.
There was discussion about the proposed height of the
structure, noting that the site had a significant grade, creating a deceptively
high appearance. It was suggested that staff’s
assessment of the property’s grade was incorrect, and that the proposal was not
out of scale for the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Alstrom clarified his concerns about the
windows, saying it was not the materials, but the shape, design and layout of
the proposed windows that he did not feel were appropriate for this environs
area.
Commissioner Meyer said she appreciated the use of the
listed property in designing the proposal, but pointed out that the proposal
included windows in atypical locations.
It was questioned whether this same concern was applicable to the
proposed front porch design.
It was noted that the subject property was located on the
far edge of the environs boundary. There
was discussion about how this location impacted the appropriate level of
review. It was noted that, per the HRC
training session held prior to tonight’s agenda meeting, the Commission was
charged only with protecting the listed property and the character defining
features of the environs of a listed property.
In light of this direction, several Commissioners felt this proposal had
little to no impact on the listed property and that approval per staff’s
recommendation would be an appropriate action.
Other Commissioners felt strongly that the review should be extended to protect
the environs as a whole, specifically the character-defining elements of the
area.
A discrepancy in the drawings was noted, and Mr. March
verified that the drawing of the east elevation was the correct one and that a
third window was no longer proposed on this side. He responded to questions that the square window
shape was chosen to minimize the view to/from
Mr. March expressed the applicant’s wish to use the garage
door and single-hung windows as shown.
He pointed out that bringing the structure closer to the four-square
style might result in replication of a historic building, losing the intended
“new structure” character.
Alstrom noted several other proposed elements and materials
that were not historic in character. Commissioner
Sizemore said these concerns were balanced, in his opinion, with the property’s
location at the very edge of the environs and the complete lack of any visual
line between the subject and listed properties.
It was suggested that changing the garage doors would not
make the design significantly more compatible.
The structure would still “read” as a modern home, and this appearance
was not of great concern to several Commissioners because of the property’s
location.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Antle, seconded by Veatch to approve the
Certified Local Government Review for the project at 841 Arkansas Street, based
on a determination the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any
listed property or its environs.
Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried 6-1, with Alstrom
voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-05-49-06 805
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the front and northern elevations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dan Riedemann, resident of the subject property, spoke on
behalf of the property owners. Mr.
Riedemann outlined the applicants’ wish to continue the existing use of the
property as a multi-family dwelling. He
described the UPR that had been in place for 12 years, which was based on the original
intent of using apartment rental fees to fund repair and renovation of the
structure. The conditions of the
original UPR included a series of milestones to ensure the renovations occurred
in a timely manner, with the ultimate intent of phasing out the apartments and
returning the structure to its historic single-family residential use.
Mr. Riedemann said the milestones were nearly complete, but
the property owners were now more aware of what it would take (financially) to
maintain the structure. They now felt it
was unrealistic to expect a single-family use to be successful in such a large
home and were pursuing another UPR to allow the continued use of the building
as a multi-family dwelling.
It was verified with staff that all the milestones had been
addressed (completed, in progress or removed).
Ms. Zollner clarified that the proposal was not a continuation of the
existing UPR. This request was for an
entirely new, stand-alone UPR.
Mr. Riedemann said it would have been impossible to
complete the renovations using only apartment rental fees; this source of
income had covered only about half of the property owners’ current investment
in the property. He said that Price
Banks, who was just leaving the post of Planning Director when the property was
purchased in 1994, said there were no statutes at that time to deal with this
“white elephant” property and the city’s UPR regulations were developed as a
result of this original proposal.
Mr. Riedemann said the structure retained “every bit of its
historic integrity.” He conveyed the
applicants’ eagerness to apply for a listing on the Lawrence Register of
Historic Places. He also suggested that
the main entry might become listed as a
Commissioner Meyer expressed concern that so much effort
had been made to create the apartment units, when the final intent was
supposedly to return the building to a single-family use. Mr. Riedemann described a number of
unforeseen circumstances that had forced the applicants to make renovations
that were not originally anticipated (Ex. basement flooding resulted in a
division of utilities).
It was noted that the uses surrounding the subject property
(a mix of multi-family and civic uses) made it unlikely that a buyer who could
afford to maintain the house as a single-family residence would actually choose
to locate there.
Mr. Riedemann said the third floor remodel was no longer
proposed because it would require installing a sprinkler system throughout the
entire house.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Marvin pointed out that the only external
element the proposed new UPR would modify was the parking area. She asked why the Commission was looking at a
project that would typically require only an administrative review. Ms. Zollner explained that State Law requires
the review of special use permits and adaptive reuse requires HRC Approval.
Commissioner Meyer said it seemed the proposal was more
akin to a rezoning. She said the property owners must have had some idea what
renovation would entail, and she questioned whether the applicants had been
sincere in their stated “original intent.”
It was discussed that the UPR process allowed for public
comment and the application of conditions, including a cyclical review that
would ensure continual maintenance of the structure. This was not so with a standard single-family
use. It was also noted that a UPR may be
revoked at any time if violations of the UPR’s conditions are found by the City
Commission.
Commissioner Hickam said adaptive re-use was a viable
option for many structures of this size as property owners “got real” about how
much it cost to maintain the structure.
It was established that a UPR may be tied to the property
or the owner.
The majority of the Commission expressed general support
for the proposal as a way to keep the structure maintained properly, but stated
their concern that appropriate conditions be applied.
There was discussion about interior renovations included in
the application. Although these were not
technically within the review of the Commission, there was some concern that
these interior changes would extend to the creation of even more apartment
units.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Alstrom to approve the proposal per staff’s
recommendation.
Motion withdrawn to allow
additional discussion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that the applicants had no intent at this
time to renovate the third floor space because this would require sprinkler
installation throughout the house that would in turn require removal of
existing historic material.
Mr. Riedemann said the applicants had no objection to
conditioning an annual review of the structure, and that there was no intent to
create more apartment units than currently shown on the submitted drawings.
Mr. Riedemann said the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
had congratulated the property owners on their preservation efforts, noting
that all internal changes had been done in a manner that would allow an easy
return to a single-family use if that were ever financially possible.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Alstrom, seconded by Hickam to approve the
Certified Local Government Review for the project at 805 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 revised conditions:
Motion
carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-05-50-06 615
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of all elevations, pointing out the
rear area where the new garage was proposed for construction.
Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions listed in
the staff report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Dan Hermreck spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining
that the original garage was destroyed by a falling tree during recent
storms. He described the original garage
and the proposed replacement structure, noting that the new garage would have
two doors facing the alley, cedar lap siding, and detailing to match the
primary structure.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission agreed with staff that the materials and
location seemed to be appropriate for the area.
It was further noted that the large size of the lot mitigated some
impact of the proposed larger garage.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Antle to approve the
Certified Local Government Review for the project at 615 Tennessee 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:
Motion
carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO.6: DR-05-51-06 830
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the storefront view on
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bo March spoke on behalf of the applicants, explaining the
intent to use the underutilized space above the family-owned businesses for
living quarters. Mr. March responded to
questions from the Commission with the following answers:
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Alstrom stated support for allowing the
additional windows (beyond the egress requirements), based on the building code
requirements for adequate light and ventilation.
It was agreed that changes in the number and location of
windows could be reviewed by staff and did not have to go through ARC or Full
Commission review.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Sizemore, seconded by Alstrom to approve the
Certified Local Government Review for the project at 830 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 revised conditions:
6.
This
recommendation is given with the understanding that the City Commission must
approve the associated site plan.
Approval of this request by staff or the
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 7: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
There were no demolition permit requests for review.
There were no ARC issues to discuss.
Administrative
Reviews
DR-05-43-06 900
block alleyway between Vermont & Kentucky Streets; Site modifications;
Certified Local Government Review. The
property is located in the environs of
DR-05-44-06 220
W. 6th; Pump station improvements; Certified Local Government
Review. The property is located in the
environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District and the Pinckney I Historic
District, National Register of Historic Places.
The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay
District. Submitted by the City of
DR-05-45-06 918
DR-05-46-06 1613
It was verified that the
replacement roofing material would match the existing, although the exact type
of material was not noted in the application.
DR-05-47-06 838
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Sizemore to approve all
Administrative Reviews per Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
There were no BZA items to discuss.
There was no additional comment from any member of the
public
a.
2006-2007
Committee Discussion and Selection
Staff explained the purpose of each Committee and
Commissioners made volunteer commitments:
Nomination Committee
This Committee was intended to identify properties that
qualify for the
Garage Study
Committee
This Committee was intended to finalize the work done on
the study and establish a set of guidelines and a checklist for the
rehabilitation and demolition of garages in historic areas and the environs.
Commissioner Alstrom suggested these guidelines be expanded
to include other kinds of accessory buildings.
Staff suggested restricting the guidelines to garage structures to begin
with, so the study could be finalized in a timely manner. The guidelines could then be expanded with
further study. It was clarified that
these were intended only as guidelines, not regulations, but the Commission may
choose to request the guidelines be codified at a later date.
It was agreed that it would be appropriate to have more
than two Commissioners on this Committee, in addition to representatives from
LPA and other neighborhood groups. This
would require public notice for all meetings, and Staff was directed to publish
a Committee meeting on a monthly basis. Commissioner
Alstrom volunteered for the Garage Study Committee. Mike Goans and Virgil Dean were suggested as
possible community representatives.
Paul Wilson Awards
Committee
This Committee will be responsible for developing criteria
for selecting and reviewing nominees, choosing award winners and setting a date
for the annual award ceremony. It was
discussed that this might be appropriately held in May, which is National
Historic Preservation month, or in September, to be linked with the annual LPA
meeting.
Commissioners Marvin and Hickam volunteered for the Paul
Wilson Awards Committee.
Architectural Review
Committee
Commissioner Hickam nominated Commissioners Alstrom and
Sizemore to continue serving on the ARC.
Liaison to
Commissioner Meyer volunteered to act as the Commission’s
liaison to KU.
b.
Other
Miscellaneous Matters
Staff responded to questioning that
the structure at 8th & New Hampshire Streets (
Ms. Zollner said the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines had been
forwarded to the City Commission and were anticipated for approval.
ADJOURN – 9:
Official minutes are
on file in the Planning Department office.