Action Summary
July 20, 2006 – 7:05 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present:
Meyer, Marvin, Veatch, Antle and Alstrom
Staff present:
Zollner, Wagner and Olson
_______________________________________________________________________
Both the Chair and
Vice-Chair were absent. Motioned by Veatch,
seconded by Antle to elect Marvin as the Chair pro tem for this meeting.
ITEM NO. 1: ACTION SUMMARY
No typographical errors were noted.
Motioned by Veatch, seconded by Marvin to approve the June
15, 2006 minutes as submitted.
Motion
carried unanimously, 4-0.
Alstrom arrived at
7:10 p.m.
ITEM NO. 2: CoMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 3: Design
proposals for the Carnegie Library addition,
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David Dunfield, GLPM Architects, said this was an
unusual situation, since the City of
Mr. Dunfield showed drawings of the current Carnegie
Library building, pointing out the original structure and the addition constructed
in 1937. He noted that the addition was
obviously representative of the changes in architectural style made between the
two time periods. The proposed new
addition was designed to continue that intent; it was based on modern architectural
styles while referencing both the original structure and the addition to the
building. Mr. Dunfield said this
contrast of styles appeared to be at the center of most review concerns.
Mr.
Dunfield pointed out characteristics in the proposed new addition that had been
borrowed from both the main structure and the existing addition. He said he felt this proposal met all of the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards on New Additions. He said the addition was small and would be set
back from the existing building. This
addition would not change the primary façade of the original structure.
Mr.
Dunflied explained the new addition was designed to provide bathrooms on both
levels and full
It
was noted that when the structure was listed on the National Register, the 1937
addition was noted as having achieved historic significance, supporting the
applicant’s opinion that the new addition must reference both styles.
Mr.
Dunfield explained modifications made to the first proposal to address concerns
raised by the SHPO, the National Park Service, LPA and City staff. He noted common features throughout the
entire structure (stone base, brick color, texture) and the relationship of solids
to voids.
Based
on comments received, a single window was added to the west elevation. However, the applicant would like to explore
other design options to break up the solid wall face.
There
was discussion about how the new addition would attach to the 1937
addition. Mr. Dunfield showed how this
connection was designed to use existing openings to minimize the removal of
historic materials.
There
was discussion about the utilitarian window placement in the 1937 addition that
is representative of Depression Era architecture.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Marci
Francisco read into the record a statement from the LPA. This statement outlined LPA’s appreciation
for the changes made to the original proposal and their desire to continue
working with staff and the applicant on other elements. Specifically, LPA would like to see a strong
horizontal element (possibly a brick pattern) on the west elevation and more
corner emphasis.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr.
Dunfield said he understood comments about the need to modify the west
elevation, and the applicant would like to explore options for this element.
The
Commission generally agreed that the new drawings were an improvement because
they are more compatible with the original structure and the 1937 addition.
ACTION TAKEN
No
action was required at this time.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-06-52-06 812
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the property elevations, pointing
out where a two-story porch had been removed from the east elevation.
Ms. Zollner said the applicant made modifications after
reading the staff report and would like to discuss these with the Commission.
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
B. Gordon Fitzsimmons, applicant, said he had originally
proposed a Juliet-style balcony, but staff had suggested that a covered porch
would fit better with the neighborhood.
He asked the Commission to consider approving a free-standing, covered,
rear porch to emulate the existing front porch on this property.
It was established that the previous rear porch had been
poorly constructed and in a state of disrepair before being blown off in the
spring microburst. The applicant
proposed to replace the porch as part of his renovations to return the
structure to its original single-family use.
It was established that the existing door above the porch area would be
replaced with a window.
The applicant mentioned his intent to replace all remaining
rear wood windows with vinyl double-hung windows to match others on the
building.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member
of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was
noted that staff had not been aware of the applicant’s intent to replace the
existing wood windows with vinyl clad windows and did not support this
change. It was discussed that the Commission
had approved the use of aluminum clad windows in other environs reviews, but
had consistently upheld staff’s opinion that vinyl clad windows were not
appropriate in the environs.
It was
suggested that the item could be approved with the condition that final
materials and construction drawings would be subject to review by the HRA. Ms. Zollner said staff would appreciate the
Commission’s direction on the window issue if the item were approved with this
condition.
The Commission agreed with staff that wood windows would be preferable, but aluminum clad windows would be an acceptable alternative. Vinyl windows were not considered an acceptable option for the environs.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned
by Antle, seconded by Alstrom to approve the certified Local Government Review
for the project at 812 Indiana Street, based on a determination that it 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 including
window specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources
Administrator prior to release of a building permit.
2. The
applicant provide drawings of the revised porch and changes to be made to the
existing windows, including notations of materials, 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.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-06-54-06 1112
This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-06-57-06 1600 Block of
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the vacant subject property from
all directions. Examples of existing
homes in the area were presented, showing a wide variety of architectural
styles.
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Dan Rockhill spoke on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Rockhill said the proposed structure was
modern in style and designed on a budget to maximize yard space, accommodate
significant slopes, and preserve existing vegetation. He said the building was of modern design but
could be readily assimilated into the obviously eclectic neighborhood.
It was noted that the proposed structure was significantly shorter
than the 35’ height restriction for this zoning district.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed agreement with the applicant and staff
that the neighborhood could accommodate this proposal, noting that this was an
environs review. It was added that the
building was small and used an appropriate setback to mitigate its impact.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Veatch, seconded by Marvin to approve the Certified
Local Government Review for the project in the 1600 Block of Louisiana Street,
based on a determination that it would 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.
Motion
carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO.7: DR-06-58-06 2309
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff
showed pictures of the main and ancillary structures, which are both
contributing structures to the Breezedale Historic District. Staff also showed pictures of the existing
driveway.
Staff then
showed slides of examples of other homes and garages in area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bo March
spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
explained his familiarity with the property as he owned it several years
ago. Mr. March elaborated that it was not
fair to call the structure a garage. According
to Mr. March, the lack of accessibility from the driveway and its small size
render the structure a shed.
Mr. March
said that the existing garage next door at Commissioner Sizemore’s property was
very similar to what he proposed.
When Mr.
March owned the home, he explained, the existing ancillary structure was “dilapidated.” He made some efforts to improve the structure,
but most of his efforts were cosmetic in terms of longevity.
Mr. March
further explained that because of its lack of accessibility, structural damage
and inability to hold a modern vehicle, the cost of repair over replacement of
the existing garage is prohibitively expensive.
He further elaborated that the property owners would like to remove the oversized
deck to reclaim the back yard.
The
Commission asked the following questions regarding the garage in question: Was it ever large enough to accommodate any
kind of car? Was it ever intended to be
a garage on this property?
In
response, Mr. March said there is a small accessory building on the lot to the
north of the subject property in addition to their existing garage. Commissioner Marvin stated that the link to
the property to the north was confusing the issue; the existing ancillary
structure in question may have never been a garage.
In
conclusion, Mr. March stated that what the property owners want is a garage
with quality materials and details to match the Breezedale Historic District
and the main structure.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member
of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Several
Commissioners expressed concern with the removal of this ancillary structure. They discussed the benefits of the proposed
ancillary structure being located in an area other than the footprint of the
existing ancillary structure. It was
pointed out that two ancillary structures would significantly reduce yard space. It was then noted that the removal of the
existing deck would add to the green space of the property owner’s lot.
The
Commission then referred to staff in reference to accessory structures under
the new Code. Ms. Zollner explained that
the accessory structure portion of the new Code is very different than the
previous Code. She elaborated that at
the present time, the size of an accessory unit must be smaller than the main
structure’s footprint or 20% of the lot area, whichever is greater.
Ms.
Zollner then referenced the Acting Planning Director,
It was
then restated by several Commissioners that the property is listed as
contributing to a Historic District, as is the ancillary structure.
Mr. March
added that a structural engineer said the existing ancillary structure is not
usable, probably not safe, and very expensive to repair.
Staff
explained that the area of town where the property is located was never mapped
on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Therefore,
staff was unable to document its exact construction date. However, the ancillary structure is listed in
the nomination of the property as contributing, which means that the structure
is at least 50 years old. Commissioner
Alstrom expressed surprise that the structure was listed as contributing
because he doesn’t see where the structure relates the main structure.
It was
clarified that the proposed new garage is 24’ X 24’. Other garages in the area are both single and
double car garages.
The
Commissioners had no comments on design or materials of the proposed new
garage, mainly because of the wide range of garage styles and sizes in the
area.
Staff
informed the Commission that the property owners would be eligible for tax
credits should they choose to rehabilitate rather than demolish the existing
ancillary structure.
Mr. March
asked if the existing ancillary structure could be retained, but moved to a
different location on the lot. Staff
clarified that this would require a new proposal.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned
by Antle, seconded by Alstrom to approve the new construction only, as
proposed, with the conditions noted in the staff report and deny the demolition
of the existing ancillary structure, per staff’s recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO.8: DR-06-59-06 920
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the subject property, noting that
it was in the environs of three nationally listed properties and also proposed
as a contributing structure in a nomination now being written for a new Oread Historic
District.
It was noted that the property had only limited sight lines
to the listed properties when foliage was full, but sight lines were much
clearer in winter months when trees were bare.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The
applicant was not present.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ernie Eck read a statement into the record from the Lawrence
Preservation Alliance. He said the LPA
could not support the wholesale removal of historic material proposed with this
request. The letter specifically cited
the siding and windows that defined the character of the structure and the
status of the property as a contributing structure in the upcoming new
district.
The LPA suggested that, while the applicant was making a
good faith effort to rehabilitate the structure, this should become an
educational experience. He should be
made aware of the considerable loss of historic value and his ineligibility to
obtain tax credits if a significant amount of historic material was removed.
Mr. Eck said the pictures of the property showed flaking
paint, not rotting wood, and the structure was not in poor enough condition to
require the drastic measures being proposed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed significant concern about the
vagueness of the application, and generally agreed there was not enough
information to make a determination at this time. It was noted that the Commission often
deferred an item when no applicant or representative was present.
It was pointed out that this was currently an environs
review, but the property was part of a new district nomination being
written. There was some discussion about
whether the Commission could take this into consideration before the nomination
was approved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Marvin, seconded by Veatch to defer the item
until the applicant provided complete documentation to address concerns
outlined in the staff report. Staff was
directed to request the applicant to attend the next meeting and to be prepared
to speak about the issues raised.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO.9: DR-06-60-06 817
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed elevations of the existing ancillary structure
proposed for demolition and views to and from the primary structure. Slides were also shown of other existing
ancillary structures on the alley in this area.
Ms. Zollner explained that, in doing research for the
applicant, it was found that the Commission rarely approved demolition of an
ancillary structure when the building was found to be in suitable condition for
repair. This had occurred only three
times (all in 2003), and all cases involved special circumstances.
It was discussed that the new Code would allow for the
construction of a second ancillary structure (retaining the existing one) in
certain cases. This allowance was under
discussion and might be amended in the future, but the Acting Planning Director
said the new Code language could be appropriately applied at this time.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Kent
Smalter spoke on behalf of the applicant, showing more detailed drawings with
revisions made after the packet was distributed. Mr. Smalter said the primary structure was constructed
in 1946 and retained its original footprint.
He said the garage appeared to have been built later, based on differences
in lap siding reveal.
Mr. Smalter explained that the existing accessory building
was too small to function as a modern garage, and the property owner wished to modify
the building to house one car and serve as a work studio. The applicant felt the proposed new garage
would complement the primary structure and the neighborhood.
Mr. Smalter said there were many existing garages in the
environs closer to the listed property and larger than the building he proposed.
Commissioner Alstrom spoke about how there might be a
spatial conflict with the siting of the proposed new garage’s roof over the
alley with the existing utility poles.
It was verified that the Code allowed a 0’ setback for accessory
structures that abut an alley. Mr.
Smalter said the new garage was intended to match the footprint of the existing
accessory building, but he would be sure to look into encroachment issues and
wanted to avoid a variance request if possible.
Commissioner Marvin spoke about the unique circumstances in
the three demolition permits approved in 2003 for structures that were still in
repairable condition. She said those
conditions did not appear to be present in this case.
Mr.
Smalter responded to questioning that the applicant had been renting space for
her work studio. She now wished to
provide that space on her own property, and building a new accessory building
was substantially less expensive than adding onto the primary building.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member
of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission generally agreed that they understood the
applicant’s wish to have a functioning garage.
There was discussion about the appropriateness of the proposed
design. Although the proposed garage is
two stories, it would still be smaller than and subservient to the primary
structure.
The Commission discussed the implications of allowing
demolition of a structure that was not in poor condition. It was noted that the subject property was
located on the edge of the defined environs and suggested that properties this
close to the boundary line were also further from the Commission’s
authority. By that standard, it was
questioned how far inside the environs boundary a property must then be located
to “matter.”
There was discussion about the ability to have both the
existing and new accessory buildings under the new Code. Several problems were noted with the
two-building option, and staff agreed that just because this choice was
possible, it was not necessarily desirable.
Commissioner Marvin said she felt strongly that the
existing garage was a character defining feature, and that demolition would significantly
alter the environs. Commissioner Alstrom
said he understood these concerns, but he would support the proposed demolition
and new construction over the two-building option. He explained that the loss of green space
would be even more damaging to the character of the environs than removal of
the existing garage.
Commissioner Veatch stated his concern that demolition
would mean the wholesale removal of existing historic material.
Commissioner Alstrom noted the applicant’s ability to
appeal the Commission’s decision.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned
by Veatch, seconded by Marvin to deny the project at
Motion carried 3-2, with Veatch, Marvin and Alstrom in
favor. Antle and Meyer voted in
opposition.
ITEM NO. 10: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the June 15, 2006 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural
Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the June 15, 2006 regular
meeting.
There were no ARC meetings for discussion.
Administrative Reviews
DR-06-53-06 924 ½
DR-06-56-06 1041
DR-06-61-06 1332
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned
by Veatch, seconded by Meyer to approve all Administrative Reviews as presented
by staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
There were no BZA requests for consideration.
Ms. Zollner said staff had
contacted the railroad several times in past years about possible nominations
for the Depot but had received a negative response each time.
·
There
was discussion about the
·
A
meeting of the Garage Subcommittee was announced for Friday, July 21st
at 4:00 p.m.
·
It
was established that the Nominations Subcommittee would meet one hour prior to
monthly agenda meetings, beginning in September. It was likely that meetings would be held
quarterly once the committee was underway.
·
A
meeting date was still to be determined for the Awards Subcommittee.
ADJOURN – 10:05 p.m.