ACTION SUMMARY APRIL 15, 2004
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners McKenzie, Dean, Lodwick and new Comm.’s Alstrom and Sizemore
Staff members Lynne Zollner and Katie Ambler
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Lodwick to approve the March 18, 2004 action summary as revised.
Motion carried 3-0-2, with Comm. Alstrom and Sizemore abstaining.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 3: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-2005
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Lodwick to elect Comm. Marvin as Chair for the 2004 – 2005 term.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to elect Comm. Lodwick as Vice-Chair for the 2004 – 2005 term.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Commission discussed filling the vacant Architectural Review Committee (ARC) position, with the suggestion membership be increased to three members, with two members constituting a quorum.
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to elect Comm.’s Lodwick, Alstrom and Sizemore as the 2004 – 2005 Architectural Review Committee, subject to the condition that two (2) members would constitute a quorum.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
It was established that Comm. McKenzie would continue to act as the Commission’s liaison with Kansas University
ITEM NO. 4: DR-03-20-04: 723 Louisiana; Interior and Exterior Kitchen Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Dan Hermreck for the property owners of record. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Old West Lawrence Historic District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff provided photographs outlining the applicant’s intent to change the size of windows on the north and west elevations and remove (interior and exterior) one of four existing chimneys to accommodate interior kitchen modifications.
Staff expressed concern with the magnitude of the proposed changes, specifically the removal of the chimney, a change that was not easily reversible. The window modifications, in Staff’s opinion, were in keeping with the preservation guidelines with minor conditions (full documentation, keeping original materials stored on site).
Staff recommended approval of the window modifications as proposed with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Denial was recommended for the chimney removal, based on a determination that this change would significantly alter the historic character of the structure and did not meet the standards set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Peter Carttar, property owner, explained the history of changes made to the structure, including a rear addition and a 1960’s kitchen remodel. The chimney removal was meant to allow for a continuous roof membrane between the original structure and the rear addition.
It was verified that the applicant was concerned about future problems because currently, the roof does not leak.
The applicant explained the intent to modify the existing window sashes. The project would involve removing the windows and re-fitting the window sashes to accommodate the new window openings. Vice-Chair Lodwick commented that, since this was a new use for an old structure, the window modification was appropriate. He also felt it would be appropriate to allow the removal of the chimney, since it was one of four and located on the addition, not the original structure.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Asked to comment on the chimney as a later addition, Staff explained the chimney in question is historic in its own right. Based on the applicable standards and guidelines, it has acquired independent historic significance and should be retained and preserved.
Mr. Carttar verified that the addition including the chimney is historic and was constructed in 1904.
Comm. Sizemore noted that there were interior design alternatives that would allow for retention of the chimney. Vice-Chair Lodwick said he would feel differently if the chimney were part of the original structure, but in these circumstances he felt it would be adequate to condition that the bricks of the chimney structure be kept (allowing removal).
It was clarified that Staff had no objection to allowing the window modifications as proposed.
Staff again noted that, according to the preservation standards, the 1904 rear addition was historic, and the chimney was a defining feature of that addition. Once removed, this feature would be extremely difficult to replace.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Sizemore to approve the Certified Local Government review for the window modifications for 723 Louisiana as proposed, based on the determination that the project would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Alstrom to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the chimney removal at 723 Louisiana as proposed, based on the determination that it would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants provide black and white photographs of the interior and exterior before removal occurs (Staff will assist with the photographs at the applicant’s request); and
2. Original materials must be stored on site.
Motion carried, 3-2, with Comm.’s Alstrom, McKenzie and Vice-Chair Lodwick voting in favor and Comm.’s Sizemore and Dean voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-03-21-04: 804 Kentucky; Garage; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by J. Stephen Lane for the property owners of record. The property is located within the environs of the Lucy Hobbs Taylor Building (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places, Carnegie Library (200 W. 9th Street), National Register of Historic Places, the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places and the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff introduced the Item, a request to modify an existing garage by extending the southern side by eight feet and increasing the height of the structure to accommodate this change. The proposed final dimensions were 22’ X 21’11”, with an eight foot increase in height.
It was verified that two variances would be requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals related to the size of the accessory structure and its setback from the alley.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Lane, architect, spoke on behalf of the property owner, explaining the existing garage was not historic and the applicant would like to modify the “tin shed” by adding to the size, siding the garage in wood and trimming it to match the primary structure. The revised structure would have asphalt shingles and would be one-story.
It was established that the project would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in May, and that the BZA’s criteria for considering the request were significantly different from those used by the HRC. The BZA would receive a regular Staff Report related to the variance requests and a second report outlining the HRC’s determination.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the impact on massing and scale of the proposed size increase. Comm. Dean said the proposed design was sensitive to the massing and scale concerns of historic environs and retained use of the alley. Comm. Sizemore agreed with Comm. Dean and thought the design minimized the effect of the lost rear yard. Comm. Alstrom was in favor of the project as an adaptive reuse that modernized the existing parking spaces.
Vice-Chair Lodwick discussed his concerns with the amount of rear yard coverage at length. It was suggested that the required rear yard aspect of the project was more within the purview of the BZA, rather than the HRC.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Vice-Chair Lodwick to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the garage modifications at 804 Kentucky as proposed, based on the determination that the project would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-03-22-04: Referred by the CHPB - Project Number Lz_B3/7221, Korean War Memorial. Request review of appropriateness for the construction of a memorial plaza located on Memorial Drive on the University of Kansas campus, Lawrence, Kansas. Submitted by Design & Construction Management on behalf of the University of Kansas. The proposed addition is located within the environs of Strong Hall (KU Campus), National Register of Historic Places and the Chi Omega Sorority House (1345 West Campus Road) Kansas Historic Places.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
James Long, Chair of the Campus Historic Preservation Board (CHPB), explained the University’s intent to construct a Korean War Memorial as part of the modifications to Memorial Drive.
On April 5, 2004, the CHPB approved the proposed project. The project was then submitted to the Historic Resources Commission for review, per the Memorandum of Agreement reached between the City and the University.
KU has developed a concept plan to show basic layout and landscaping of Memorial Drive. The CHBP has held an informational meeting on the landscape concept plan and the University offered to bring similar information about the plan to the Historic Resources Commission if there is interest.
Steve Scannell, KU Office of Design and Construction Management, spoke about the amenities of the proposed site, including a small pedestrian plaza. He pointed out the memorial would be along the far eastern edge of the environs of Chi Omega Sorority House and not visible from Strong Hall. Scannell also discussed the visibility to Chi Omega Sorority House.
Materials for the memorial would match those used throughout the campus – natural stone and brick with ornamental metal railings.
The University hoped to remove all northern parking, relocating parallel to the south, as well as providing a southern pedestrian walkway.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that the railing would be similar to the Mallott Gateway
Comm. Dean said he would like to see the overall plan. Jim Modig, Director of the KU Office of Design and Construction Management, explained each project in the overall plan evolved based on financial resources (donations). The University and the CHPB looked at the entire plan again every time more funding became available.
It was discussed that the memorial was conceived many years previous, but funding had not been available. Now that funding had been secured, the University felt the newly created Memorial Drive was an obvious location for the Korean War Memorial.
Mr. Scannell responded to questioning that it was hoped the bollards would not be necessary, but they could be installed later if needed.
Comm. Alstrom said he did not care for the steel tube railing and that he would like the University to adopt a different design, but the environs were not affected. He stated he would abstain from the vote because he did not see how this site improvement related to the Secretary’s Standards.
Vice-Chair Lodwick and Comm. Dean agreed the proposed removal of the southern parking area was an improvement.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Sizemore to approve the Certifiied Local Government Review for the Korean War Memorial on Memorial Drive, based upon a determination that the project does not encroach upon, damage or destroy and historic property or its environs.
Motion carried 4-0-1, with Comm. Alstrom abstaining.
ITEM NO. 7: Receive and provide public comment to the Kansas Historic Sites Board of Review on a proposal to nominate the Hancock Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. (A map of the proposed district is available at the planning office.)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner explained that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had requested the Commission’s input on the Hancock District nomination that would go before the Sites Board in May.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Lodwick recommended several changes to the document that were noted by Staff to be forwarded to the Kansas State Historical Society.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to direct Staff to write a letter of support for the Hancock District nomination to be forwarded to the SHPO, along with a list of the suggested changes.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 8: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the March 18, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the March 18, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no ARC projects for review.
Noting Staff’s recommendation for denial of one of the three Administrative Reviews, the Commission agreed to separate the projects for discussion and/or voting. Staff explained the appeal process for the Downtown Design Guidelines.
DR-03-19-04: 1001 Massachusetts; ADA Ramp & Exterior Staircases; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Watkins National Bank Building (1047 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Lodwick asked if interior staircases were a possible alternative, as he was concerned about debris on the proposed exterior stairs creating a safety hazard. Comm. Dean noted that the applicant could be responsible for maintaining and removing debris from the stairs and right of way.
Comm. Lodwick suggested cutting through the exterior walls to connect to an interior staircase. Comm. Sizemore responded that cutting into the concrete for exterior stairs as proposed would be much less detrimental according to the standards than cutting a new entrance into the historic structure.
It was noted that the Reuter organ currently inside the structure would be returned to the Reuter Company and used in their corporate office.
Comm. Alstrom said the applicant should understand that it would not be appropriate for them to return in the future to request an awning to cover the exterior stairs. It was clarified that any additional external changes would be brought back before the Commission.
DR-03-23-04: 645 Alabama; Exterior Stairway and Gate; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Mike Meyers for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the McCurdy House (909 W. 6 th Street), National Register of Historic Places.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to confirm Staff’s approval for the projects at 1001 Massachusetts and 645 Alabama as presented.
Motion carried, 4-1, with Comm. Lodwick voting in opposition.
DR-03-24-04: 733 Massachusetts; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places and the Lucy Hobbs Taylor Building (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places, the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State Register of Historic Places, and Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts) Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Vice-Chair Lodwick stated he did not approve of signage in the storefront area.
It was clarified that the sign in question was installed more than two years ago without a sign permit and prior to adoption of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Vice-Chair Lodwick commented that the lockable glass sign case on the nearby House Building had a nice appearance and that style should be considered in the future.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Vice-Chair Lodwick to confirm Staff’s denial of the sign at 733 Massachusetts as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since March 18, 2004.
B-03-06-04: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said request is specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback for structures from the front property line. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the setback to 0’ to allow for the construction of a gateway structure at the sidewalk entrance to the property. Since the structure will be more than 3’ in height, a variance is required. The request applies to the following legally described property: Lot 165 in Block 56 in that part of the City of Lawrence known as West Lawrence; also beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 2, in Lane Place addition to the City of Lawrence, Kansas, thence west 125’, thence north 24’, thence east 125’, thence south 24’ to
the place of beginning, in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as Lawrence Community Nursery School, 645 Alabama Street. Submitted by Mike R. Myers with Stan Hernly Architects, for Lawrence Community Nursery School, property owner of record.
B-03-08-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The variances are from the provisions in Section 20-1311 and 20-1312 of said City Code, which require an accessory building to be set back from the centerline of an alley a minimum of 13’; and, restrict the size of an accessory structure to no greater than 30 percent of the required rear yard area. The applicant is asking for variance approval to reduce the accessory building setback to a minimum of 12˝’ from the centerline of the alley; and, an accessory building size of 484 s.f., which is 151 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (333 s.f. allowed). The variances are requested to allow for construction of an addition to the existing garage. The property is located at 804 Kentucky Street and is legally described as: Lot 48 on Kentucky Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by J. Stephen Lane, Architect, for Lee M. Hubbell and Gary R. Samuelson, property owners of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Dean stated would like to retain the Commission’s precedent of making few comments on the BZA issues. These were brought before the Commission according to policy, but any project that would make a significant impact on the historic environs would be separately submitted to the Commission as its own issue.
D. General public comment.
No member of the public made additional comments.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
a. Staff noted that an application had been submitted for local landmark status for the home of William Burroughs.
b. The Commission discussed a request from Mark Kaplan that the Commission ask the City to investigate listing Hobbs Park on the Local Register. This prompted discussion about the National Register status of the Murphy-Bromelsick House, which Mr. Kaplan had also been involved in.
The Murphy-Bromelsick House had been approved for a Save America’s Treasures grant, which carried a stipulation that the property be nationally listed. The house had been relocated, which would normally preclude National listing, but the Parks Service had indicated this would not be an issue in this case.
Staff was asked to approach the City Manager about listing the entire Hobbs Park on the Lawrence, State, or National Registers.
F. Review and comment by HRC on modifying administrative review policy.
It was brought to the attention of the Commission that, according to state law (K.A.R. 118-3-3), projects that did not involve exterior alteration but fell within the historic environs were still subject to review.
Examples of these types of projects include site plans, rezonings, Conditional Use Permits and Uses Permitted upon Review. Any project that would visibly alter the environs would be submitted to the Commission, but these “invisible” projects should be administratively reviewed by Staff and brought before the Commission as part of the Administrative Review section of the monthly agenda.
Staff recommended the Commission take action to amend the Administrative Review policy to reflect the state law requirements.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to amend the Administrative Review policy to include Administrative Review by Staff of additional projects as explained in Staff’s memorandum.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ADJOURN – 8:50 PM
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office