ACTION SUMMARY JUNE 17, 2004 DRAFT
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners McKenzie, Dean, Marvin, Hickam, Lodwick, Alstrom and Sizemore
Staff members Lynne Zollner, Katie Ambler and Amy Saker.
Several typographical changes were requested to the summary of the April 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Chair Marvin, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Action Summary of the April 2004 meeting as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
· Email from President of the Oread Neighborhood Association regarding parking requirements for boarding houses. This message is related to Board of Zoning Appeals considerations and is sent to the Commission for their information.
ITEM NO. 3: DR-06-39-04: South Park Center, South Park; Exterior Modifications; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, property owners of record. The property is listed on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located within the environs of the Douglas County Courthouse (1100 Massachusetts), Watkins Bank (1047 Massachusetts), English Lutheran Church (1040 New Hampshire), and the John N. Roberts House (1307 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of all elevations on the South Park Recreation Center, located in the locally registered South Park. Exterior modifications were proposed for all elevations, involving window replacement on the north, east and west elevations and a new storefront system on the south. The window replacements were intended to address current maintenance issues by replacing delicate angled windows with new energy-efficient aluminum and glass panels.
Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Since this was a City building, there was no applicant to present.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that two windows had already been replaced after being damaged, so the Commission could see what the proposed new windows would look like. There was discussion about whether any of the existing bronze detailing would be retained, which would not match the proposed clear-coat aluminum on the new storefront and windows.
There was discussion that the existing building was in itself an imposition on the historic character of the area. It was suggested that the proposed changes would not reduce or increase that impact.
The importance of the structure as an element of the park was discussed with the comment that the building was not yet old enough to qualify as historic, but that time would eventually come.
It was noted that the existing angled windows carried through the design of the brick walls. While the new flat windows would be more structurally sound, they did not carry out the angled design, which might be considered a significant change. There was discussion about the step-by-step loss of original design integrity.
Staff explained the changes to the windows were designed strictly for maintenance. The existing windows were made of thin glass, which broke easily and were ineffective for heating and cooling. It was suggested the changes could be approved on the basis that they were cost-effective for the public since, as a public building, replacement windows and heating/cooling bills were funded by the taxpayers.
It was verified that photographs of the original structure would be obtained before any further modifications were made.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review and the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at South Park Center, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy the environs of any historic structure or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations and window specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit; and
2. The applicant work with the Historic Resources Administrator to document the existing structure before any alterations are made.
Motion carried 6-1, with Comm. Alstrom voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-06-40-04: 1621 New Hampshire Street; Demolition and Garage Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Hernly Associates for the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the Eugene F. Goodrich House (1711 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented photographs of the subject property, explaining the applicant’s request to demolish and replace the existing garage. It was noted that the current structure is closely situated to the garages on the adjacent east and west properties.
Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Myers, Hernly Architects, described the existing garage, saying it had significant rotting of the rafters and siding and the doors were difficult to operate. The proposed replacement garage would be larger, 22’ X 24’, to accommodate two vehicles and provide storage space and designed to blend with the primary structure. There was a second half-story proposed to provide additional storage space.
The new structure would not be visible from the street, there was no alley behind the property, and the historic district in process for New Hampshire Street did not include this property.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Hickam felt this project would not create any obvious difficulties for the historic area, since it was hidden effectively from view. He stated for the record that he thought the proposed structure was too big.
It was verified that the roof pitch of the garage would match that of the primary structure, and any changes to the exterior plans would be brought back before the Commission.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Vice-Chair Lodwick, seconded by Comm. Marvin to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1621 New Hampshire, in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and the standard of evaluation and subject to the following conditions:
1. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
2. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and after construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-06-44-04: 1416 Tennessee Street; Boarding House Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee) and the William Priestly House (1505 Kentucky), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of all elevations, showing where the addition was proposed on the eastern side of the boarding house as part of rehabilitation efforts.
In Staff’s opinion, there was not enough information submitted to make a recommendation for this project. The Staff Report provided suggested conditions if the Commission wanted to approve the project, including the submission of missing documentation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, distributed additional elevation drawings, explaining the intent to return the structure from its current state with seven individual apartments (15 bedrooms) to a boarding house with 12 bedrooms and a single kitchen. The eastern addition was intended to simplify the construction process and provide larger bedrooms for the occupants.
Regarding the massing of the addition, it was noted that the deck would be visible from the historic building across the street. Staff had suggested landscaping to buffer this view.
The applicant was concerned about egress being designed correctly at this point so modifications were not required later. The applicant was in easement negotiations with the adjacent property owner and would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to deal with the outer stairs, which hung over the property line.
It was verified that vinyl was the intended material for the windows, similar to the material used on 1334 Ohio, because it was easier to maintain than wood. The new windows would match the existing in size as long as they met egress requirements.
The Commission noted that specifications were only provided for the windows. Mr. Adams said the applicant hoped to have the massing approved tonight and work with the ARC on material selection.
It was established that shingles were intended for the second story.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that the Commission had the ability to approve the project at this point, based on the elevations given to them at the meeting. However, Staff had not been able to give the new drawings the level of review that was typical for any other project.
It was established that the project would not reduce the amount of off-street parking, and the existing driveway would be used to provide an ADA parking space.
It was noted that the project would not be visible from any historic property and the house to the north had an addition that extended into the alley approximately the same distance as the proposed project.
The Commission made design suggestions, discussing the opposing concepts of blending the addition 100% or calling out the new structure with subtle details.
It was suggested that Commission and Staff workload could be reduced by enforcing a no tolerance policy for incomplete submittals. They would not be published and would not go forward until Staff received all necessary elements.
Several Commissioners agreed it would not be fair to the Commission, Staff or other applicants to consider this application with the current level of information and Staff review time. It was also commented that this level of detail was too much to leave to the ARC.
Mr. Adams said the applicant hoped to get approval from the Commission tonight so the project could go forward to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Commission asked why the appropriate information had not been submitted. He replied there had been a “time crunch” and he had not seen the elevations provided tonight until 5:30. It was suggested that perhaps the applicant was attempting to get the project approved quicker than was reasonable.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to defer the project at 1416 Tennessee to the July meeting to allow submission and Staff review of additional information.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: Public Hearing for consideration of placing the structure located at 1927 Learnard Avenue on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of the subject property, including elevations of the house and garage, the two ponds, the bridge and the surrounding area.
The house was proposed for the Local Register as the home of an internationally-known writer, William S. Burroughs.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
James Grauerholz spoke as the applicant for the project, explaining he had been a friend and companion to Mr. Burroughs for 23 years, the last 16 of which were spent in this house. He outlined a number of Mr. Burroughs’ works, which were known around the world, and said Mr. Burroughs brought world-wide attention to Lawrence by living here.
Mr. Grauerholz said Mr. Burroughs chose Lawrence to live out his remaining years because of its landscape, the climate, and the generation of friends he had made here.
It was noted that other Burroughs’ residences had been historically registered and this house was already included on the Visitor’s Bureau website. Mr. Grauerholz hoped to use the property as a museum, providing walk-through tours, or as a literary residence.
Mr. Grauerholz commented on the Staff Report’s focus on the architectural standpoint of preservation, which provided further support for the proposal.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Neil Ballard, 1911 Learnard, said he was not concerned with the nomination itself, but with the possible impact on the neighborhood. He asked if security measures would be taken for the property if no one was in residence, and if the residents should expect busloads of tourists on a regular basis.
Mr. Ballard stated that maintenance was already an issue, even though the house was occupied. The lawn was not tended, there was an abandoned car in the back yard, and the ponds were not circulated, creating a mosquito breeding ground.
It was discussed that the Commission did not typically get involved in these types of maintenance issues, unless the structure itself was endangered by neglect. Mr. Grauerholz thanked Mr. Ballard for making him aware of these problems and indicated his intent to correct these issues.
James Carpenter, 1845 Learnard, said he had lived close to Mr. Burroughs for several years but had only spoken to him once. He nonetheless supported the proposal, noting the city’s deference to the area in previous actions, including reconstruction of the bridge in front of the property and the naming of Burroughs Creek.
Jim McCrary, 2048 Learnard, supported the proposal as a way to protect the historic nature of this entire section of Learnard Street. He spoke about the narrow street with no curbing, the disappearance of bungalows and garages, and the distinction of the subject property above and beyond who had lived there.
Karl Gridley, author, said he did not live in the subject area but wrote about Lawrence history and was currently working on an article for the Visitor’s Guide on Literary Lawrence. He said visitors came from around the world to visit the homes of literary figures like Mr. Burroughs, and he was disappointed that all physical locations associated with another “literary giant of Lawrence”, Langston Hughes, had been demolished.
Michael Almon, 1311 Prairie, discussed the importance of the subject property to the adjacent Brook Creek Neighborhood. Burroughs Creek followed the western boundary of this neighborhood, and Brook Creek residents were pleased when their suggested name was chosen.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Zollner said five calls were received from area residents concerned about the impact of environs review on their own property. One caller opposed the nomination, and the other four wanted more time to study the material provided about environs review. Staff explained to each caller that this was the initial step in the process and they would have multiple opportunities to discuss and comment on the proposal.
Mr. Grauerholtz again expressed his intent to look into maintenance concerns.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Appreciation was expressed for comments about the neighborhood as a whole. The Commission saw no reason to delay the project, noting the ability of area residents to continue reviewing environs information.
It was discussed that the nomination, as written, relied on criteria 3 & 4, when an argument could be made for other criteria (specifically 1) as well. It was established that the nomination would have to be rewritten to include support for this claim, and it was not necessary to include more than one criteria in the nomination. The Commission decided there was no reason to delay the nomination to make this revision.
The Commission determined the Zinn-Burroughs House was an appropriate title, reflecting the original builder and the historically significant resident.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Hickam to direct Staff to draft a resolution and create an environs definition for nomination of the Zinn-Burroughs House to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places, to be considered on the July 2004 agenda.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 7: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the May 20, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the May 20, 2004 regular meeting.
The Commission discussed extensively the ARC review of the Smart Siding at 515 Ohio, in relation to the possible application of this siding product at 707 Tennessee. Vice-Chair Lodwick expressed his strong objection to the use of Smart Siding, based on its obviously false wood-texture imprint. It was debated whether this product was available in a smooth finish and if this would make it an acceptable alternative material in the historic district.
Other composite siding materials were discussed, with the comment that other brands have a more realistic appearance that might make them acceptable in the historic district.
The ARC’s review was specifically focused on the possible use of Smart Siding. Since that determination was negative, the consideration for 707 Tennessee returned to the full Commission.
Staff’s research indicated a general nationwide policy of allowing composite materials on a case-by-case basis, reviewed according to the location of the subject property and the quality of material. This policy gave the most latitude and was generally supported by Staff and Commission discussion, with the understanding that allowing the use of alternate siding in one case and not in another would have to be specifically defined and supported.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the National Park Service do not address the use of alternate siding, but the State Historic Preservation Office stated that composite siding was being allowed in various Kansas historic districts.
Comm. Sizemore read the guidelines on alternate materials set by Tampa, Florida, which provided guidance for using artificial siding and instances when it may be appropriate, but did not define specific materials.
The Commission discussed the difference between artificial (wood pulp products) and synthetic (chemically-produced) siding. Staff was asked to work on language that would allow approval of alternate materials on a case-by-case basis.
Comm. Alstrom was recused for discussion and action specific to 707 Tennessee.
It was suggested that Smart Siding or some other brand of artificial siding would be allowable for 707 Tennessee if it had a smooth finish.
It was noted that the applicant’s representative talked about the use of Smart Siding to reduce the complications of real wood siding. However, this had been based on a consideration of only cedar, when there were other real wood alternatives that were easier to use.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to reconsider the action taken (approve with ARC review of siding material) in May 2004 on 707 Tennessee.
Motion carried 5-0-2, with Comm. Alstrom recused and Chairman Marvin abstaining due to her absence from the April meeting.
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. Dean to withdraw the motion on the floor.
Motion carried 5-0-2, with Comm. Alstrom recused and Chairman Marvin abstaining.
Motioned by Vice-Chairman Lodwick to approve the project, subject to the conditions presented in the Staff Report and with the understanding the applicant must resubmit the project to the Commission if another form of alternate materials were requested.
COMMISION DISCUSSION
Comm. Dean explained he had opposed the project in May based on considerations other than the siding material, so he would continue to oppose the request on the same grounds.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project located at 707 Tennessee, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with correct material notations and specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit.
2. The siding material for the new structure be wood lap siding.
3. Any changes to the approved project, including materials, will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
Motion carried, 4-1-2, with Comm. Dean in opposition, Comm. Alstrom recused and Chairman Marvin abstaining.
DR-05-38-04: 723 Massachusetts; Exterior Fire Escape; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Seibel Fabrication for the property owner of record. The property is listed on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also in the environs of the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State and Lawrence Registers of Historic Places; United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire) and the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-06-41-04: 945-947 Massachusetts; Exterior Modifications; Certificate of Appropriateness. Submitted by Ray Cates of Walker Development Services, LLC, for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Hanna Building (933 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-06-42-04: 724 Massachusetts; Sidewalk Dining; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Sam Parakhen for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places; the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), State and Lawrence Registers of Historic Places; United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire) and the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the importance of continuing to recommend the City Commission create a policy on outdoor dining.
DR-06-43-04: South Park Center, South Park; HVAC System Upgrade; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, property owners of record. The property is listed on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located within the environs of the Douglas County Courthouse (1100 Massachusetts), Watkins Bank (1047 Massachusetts), English Lutheran Church (1040 New Hampshire), and the John N. Roberts House (1307 Massachusett s), National Register of Historic Places.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Vice-Chairman Lodwick to approve the administrative reviews as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
D. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since May 20, 2004.
B-05-12-04: 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 first variance is from the provisions in Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which limits the size for an accessory structure to no greater than 30 percent of the required rear yard area. The applicant is asking for variance approval to construct an accessory building size of 528 s.f., which is 78 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (450 s.f. allowed). The second variance is from the provisions of Section 20-1311 of said City Code, which requires an accessory structure to be set back from an interior property line a minimum of 5’. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed garage to be placed 1’ off of the south and west property lines. The requested variances would allow the applicant to construct a new two-car garage. The property is located at 1621 New Hampshire Street and is legally described as: The South 50’ of Lot 11, Block 13, in Babcock’s Enlarged Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Mike Myers with Hernly Associates, for Patrick and Linda Slimmer, property owners of record.
This variance request is related to Item #4 (DR-06-40-04).
B-06-13-04: 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. Said requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback; and, a 5’ interior side yard setback for structures from the property lines. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce these building setbacks to a 14.5’ front yard, and 3’ interior side yard setbacks. The applicant is also seeking approval of a variance from the provisions of Section 20-1506(a)(3) of said City Code allowing an uncovered stair and necessary landing to project up to three feet into the required yard setback. The request would allow the existing stairs that extend beyond the property line to remain. The applicant is also seeking variance approval for the number of off-street parking spaces required for a boarding house having 12 bedrooms to be reduced from 9 spaces required by Sections 20-610.5 and 20-1212 of said City Code, to a minimum of 5 parking spaces. These requests are submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Parker Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 1416 Tennessee Street. Submitted by Lance Adams with Paul Werner Architects, for D & D Rentals the property owners of record.
This variance request is related to Item #5 (DR-06-44-04).
B-06-14-04: 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. Said requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback, a 25’ exterior side yard setback, and a 5’ interior side yard setback for structures from the property lines. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce these building setbacks to a 5’ front yard, 1’ exterior side yard, and 1’ interior side yard setback. These building setback variances are for existing conditions on the subject property. The applicant is also seeking variance approval for the number of off-street parking spaces required for a mixed-use development consisting of 6 apartments (studio and 1-bedroom size units) and offices on the first floor of the larger building to house the practices of Southwind Health Collective. Based upon the existing and proposed uses of the buildings, Sections 20-610.5, 20-610.10 and 20-1212 of said City Code require a minimum of 16 off-street parking spaces to be provided (9 spaces for the apartments + 7 spaces for the offices). The applicant is seeking a variance from the parking space requirements to reduce the number of spaces to a minimum of 4 spaces along the alley. Section 20-1216(a) of said City Code requires the off-street parking area to be set back from the street right-of-way a minimum of 15’. The applicant is requesting a variance from this Code provision. The applicant is also seeking variances from the paving, barriers and screening requirements of Sections 20-1214, 20-1215 and 20-1217 of said City Code in order to continue to use the parking spaces along the alley. These requests are submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 115 and the South 1’ of Lot 113 on Kentucky Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 1045 Kentucky Street. Submitted by Caroline Micek and Brenda Sampson. Darrell and Brenda Sampson are the property owners of record.
COMMISSION COMMENT
The Commission made no comment on the BZA items, beyond that made in their discussion of those Items appearing on their own agenda.
C. General public comment.
No member of the public had any other comments.
D. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission
Ms. Zollner notified the Commission that Historic Preservation Intern Katie Ambler would be leaving the department. The Commission expressed their regret and best wishes.
ADJOURN – 9:35 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.