ITEM NO. 3: Commission Review of new design for DR-07-93-07: Oread Inn
Commissioner Sizemore asked for clarification from Staff if there would be action taken on the item.
Ms. Braddock Zollner said a new design was presented to the City Commission and they requested the HRC review and make comment on the new design.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Tim Homburg, Architect, said the presentation before the Commission was a refining of the design to allow the project to better fit with its time and place. He said the team changed out the skin of the building, therefore the mass, height and materials remained the same. He said the team addressed the busyness of the structure and the different roof types. Mr. Homburg said the front elevation of the structure had more brick added, and the team dropped the corner elements down two feet. He said the team also paired down the emphasis on the clock element as well as the attic area on the roof top level, which had been reduced in height by two feet. Mr. Homburg stated the stone element that crossed the front of the structure would not be cut stone but would be split face stone to give a softer feel. He said the team eliminated the large stone panels along the base and above the first floor. Mr. Homburg said the east elevation would be predominantly brick and on the north elevation they incorporated the stone up to the second floor line. Mr. Homburg said the team was here to answer questions from the board.
Commissioner Meyer asked if more windows were on the north side than what had previously been shown.
Mr. Homburg said the previous drawings were 3-D, but they did have the same amount of windows.
Commissioner Sizemore said the floor to floor heights had been discussed previously, and how it gradually increased to twelve and a half feet. He asked the team if they had a chance to explore reducing the floor to floor heights.
Mr. Homburg said the floor to floor heights on each floor had been reduced by 16 inches. Mr. Homburg stated the overall height of the structure had been reduced greater than four feet and that it was close to a story’s worth of height. He said the observation deck that was in the center mass of the building looked deceiving.
Commissioner Sizemore said the seventeen six he did not understand.
Mr. Homburg stated it was a product of the type of elevator to be used.
Commissioner Williams said he liked the modification and
it looked nice. He said if it was standing
alone in downtown
Mr. Homburg said the structure would then be long and rectangular and it would feel more massive in size.
Commissioner Meyer said she attended the two City Commission meetings and she did not hear that taking the height off the top and adding it to the back of the structure would appear more massive. She asked how much work went into extending the structure towards the back instead to the top of the structure.
Mr. Homburg said there was more work that went into looking at the structure as a whole. He said if one area was taken from, they would have to put more energy into another area. He said the early studies showed there would be less of an impact by adding to the top of the structure.
Commissioner Meyer asked how it would be less of an impact.
Mr. Homburg said the neighborhood association had very strong feelings that it would be less of an impact to have a structure that went up instead of out.
Commissioner Meyer said that had not been discussed with the Historic Resources Commission.
Mr. Homburg stated esthetics drive the success of a hotel also. He said with the project being in the location where it was that the building would be seen as an architectural element that would be known by the City, or the City would be known by the architectural element. Mr. Homburg said esthetic considerations should come first, rather than trying to say the team should come in and put up a Days Inn and have it be something that was economically feasible and short in height.
Commissioner Antle said there were options between the Oread Inn and a Days Inn.
Ms. Braddock Zollner said one of the reasons for this design was because the applicant was aware of the four story block building that had been proposed previously. She said the new architect had access to old documentation and were able to see the problems that the Historic Resources Commission had with the old proposal.
Commissioner Antle said the Commission was here to provide feedback and that if the exterior was simplified and it was more consistent the Commission might be more content with the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dennis Brown, President of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said the opinion of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance had not changed. He said they agreed with the previous ruling that the project would damage or encroach upon the historic Hancock District particularly because of the height and mass of the structure. He said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance would be willing to have representatives take part in the process of a redesign. Mr. Brown said that unless reduction in height or mass was up for discussion, the Lawrence Preservation Alliance offered no opinion on design changes. He said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance opinion had been a strong majority, but not unanimous. Mr. Brown said two members that live in the Oread neighborhood disagreed with the board. He said the neighbors wanted concessions for their neighborhood but not at the expense of preservation interests. He said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance knew there was a handshake agreement with the developer to renovate and not demolish the Oread Apartments or the house to the south of the project. Mr. Brown said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance was concerned about those properties but they were not included in the agenda item. He said if the developer’s idea of preserving those properties was different than the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, the Lawrence Preservation Alliance would be back to give the neighbors point of view. Mr. Brown said the area was vulnerable and the developer had enquired about purchasing the ECM building. He said the neighbors were backing this proposal in part because they were afraid if it failed, something worse could be put there. Mr. Brown said neighborhood interests don’t always perfectly coincide with preservation interests and early on in the process preservation expertise needed to be involved. He said approval by individual neighbors who support preservation interest should not be construed by applicants as a trump card for the review process set forth by the state, and this City and Historic Preservation Ordinances. Mr. Brown said no applicant should harbor the idea that the Historic Resources Commission review process is a meaningless exercise on their way to an automatic overturn by the City Commission. He said the scope of review by the two bodies was different and sometimes overturns happen, but hopefully not often on a unanimous vote of rejection by the Historic Resource Commission. Mr. Brown said it was very important that applicants and the City Commission understand the significance of the Historic Resource Commissions decision. He said normally the Architectural Review Committee was part of the approval process and it should be demanded they be involved. Mr. Brown said there was a difference between a quality design and an appropriate historic design and the Lawrence Preservation Alliance believed there were profitable and exciting design alternatives when working with infill development in and around historic districts. He said the applicant and the design team had good intentions and were proud of their design but in the future the applicant should incorporate a preservation design professional who understood the historic landscape.
Betty Alderson said she had listened to many arguments and what she had heard from friends was not an opposition to the design only the height of the structure. She asked why the tower could not be placed at the other end of the structure. Ms. Alderson said she does not envy the Commissions decision.
D. Mclabe Maher stated the team wanted the plans approved to demolish and rezone the area to move forward but she was not sure about the property’s remaining vacant. She said the attorney for the applicant said the project was not financially feasible for them without the TIF financing and what would be left would be vacant lots if the TIF was not approved.
Marcie Francisco, 1101
Dennis Domer said he had spent a lot of time on the project and it was much bigger than a Historic preservation issue. He said the first design was as bad as anything he had seen but there was improvement on this design. Mr. Domer said there would be a meeting with architectural planners and bidders to discuss the project as a piece of architecture. He said there were not many historic structures left in the area and did not believe the architects were pleased with the project. Mr. Domer said it was not that the structure was too tall but it was not tall enough for the foot print of the structure. He said the neighborhood was small and the Hancock District consisted of only twelve houses and the Oread neighborhood was more cut up now than it was in the 1960’s. He said it belonged to the City and not just the neighborhood. Mr. Domer said the project was not a Historic Resource problem alone and there would be a meeting on December 29th, 2007 at 2:00pm in the library for discussion on the architecture of the structure.
K.T. Walsh, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said a lot of people were aware that the Fritzel family had written
to
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Meyer stated the Commissions charge was not to have this discussion again and vote on it.
Commissioner Sizemore said he was concerned that the project had proceeded to the City Commission without the Architectural Review Committee. He said he did not understand how the height of a building had any effect on its profitability; it should be tied to the number of rooms. He asked if it was possible to reconfigure the rooms so that it would have less of an impact on the district. He said without the plans for the project at the previous meeting it was difficult to make a rational judgment if there was a feasible way to configure the hotel. Commissioner Sizemore said at this time he was uncertain of the studies that had been looked at. He said at the Architectural Review Committee meeting he had offered suggestions regarding the floor to floor height, and simplifying the roof. Commissioner Sizemore said he did not understand how the observation decks, the platforms, and bars on the roof actually made the project feasible. Commissioner Sizemore said from a Historic Resource point of view the reason it was denied was because of the height and the mass and that had not changed. He said he appreciated the changes the applicant had made in the materials but there was more work to be done on the project.
Commissioner Meyer said she was not going to rehash what had happened previously and that one item that Ms. Braddock Zollner mentioned was the possible planning to minimize the harm to the area. Commissioner Meyer asked that a condition be placed on approval of the project that if any changes be made, the applicants go through the Historic Administrator.
Commissioner Williams said he wanted to go back to the community and their needs being addressed. He said Mr. Brown’s comments were appreciated and this project was a very difficult situation and issue. He said to have something that was architecturally stunning and futuristic was always a challenge. He said the design element had not been modified dramatically enough to impact the massing and scale of the project.
Commissioner Antle asked if the Commission was to form a list of suggestions that would be formally voted upon.
Ms. Braddock Zollner stated the Commission did not have to formally vote on the item that the City Commission was looking for input on the new design. She said the design that the Historic Resources Commission was looking at currently was different than the design that the City Commission had seen.
Commissioner Meyer asked Staff if a staff report would be prepared noting the Historic Resources Commissions recommendations.
Commissioner Antle said he supported the Staff recommendations to try to minimize harm to the listed properties. He said that if there were changes in the plan it should go before the Historic Resource Administrator. He asked if it would be possible to hold up the demolition of buildings.
Ms. Braddock Zollner said the HRC could recommend a condition of approval that the demolition permit not be issued at this time. She said usually the construction documents would have to be approved before the demolition permit would be issued to help ensure the construction of the replacement structure.
Commissioner Sizemore stated he would like to hear from the applicant if there was an issue tying the demolition to TIF funding.
Mr. Werner said there would be conditions on the final development plan approval.
Ms. Braddock Zollner said the City Commission had not made conditions of approval for the final development plan.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the applicant was familiar with what the possible planning was in the staff report.
Mr. Werner said yes.
Commissioner Sizemore asked if the Commission would tie demolition to TIF funding and if the funding did not go through if the applicant would go forth with the project.
Mr. Werner said the final development plan would not go before the City Commission until the end of January 2008, at best.
Commissioner Antle said he would like to see some notation that there should be no demolition until the final documents had been approved.
Ms. Braddock Zollner asked if the Commission had any design comments or planning comments regarding the proposal that would minimize harm.
Commissioner Sizemore said there would be more work on the design by the applicant.
Ms. Braddock Zollner asked if the Commission wanted to make comments to this design or the previous design that was submitted to the City Commission.
Commissioner Williams said he appreciated the elements in the design, turning the tower around and trying to make the project fit into the neighborhood. He said the Commission had addressed the effect on the neighborhood and the relevant size to the Hancock District. He said he did not know why the project needed to be the size as proposed.
Commissioner Antle said there would be a conversation at the Lawrence Public Library regarding the project.
Commissioner Marvin said there could be a whole new plan for the project.
Commissioner Meyer stated the public needed to attend the City Commission meeting, but this Commission needed to note recommendations.
Commissioner Wiechert stated there seemed to be a consensus from the community that the design was better than the previous one.
Commissioner Antle said he agreed the design was better than the previous design.
Commissioner Wiechert said the decision had been made prior to tonight regarding the scale, massing and height. He said the charge now was to look at the project architecturally.
Commissioner Meyer said the plans were better than the previous ones. She said that if any other changes were made to the plans, it should go through the Historic Resource Administrator.
Ms. Braddock Zollner said the Historic Resource Administrator would note the HRC had concerns about the release of demolition permits.
Commissioner Sizemore said he appreciated the new design. He said if it was going to be in the skyline and a landmark structure it should reflect the community. He said he did not think there would be an approval from the Historic Resources Commission.
The HRC directed staff to send the following to the City Commission:
1. The proposed project redesign does not meet the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and the criteria established in Chapter 22. The new designs do not significantly alter the overall height, scale and massing.
2. Possible planning that would help minimize harm to the listed properties should include: