September 30, 2004

Dear members of the HRC, Lynne Braddock Zollner, and City Commisioners:

We have received the letter confirming the rejection of our proposal for renovating our property at 944 Massachusetts. Our proposal to make a second renovation of our non-historical and "non-contributing" structure in less than a year is based upon the changes that have occurred in Lawrence business regulations in the past six months. As all business owners do, we are trying to make our business and building responsive to these changes and the needs of our patrons.

Upon reviewing the reasons for rejecting our request to remove our current glazing and recess our doorway further, we could perceive no significant causes for rejection. We wish to appeal the HRC's decision and ask for a public hearing before the City Commission.

The reasons for rejections were as follows:

1.      Significant damage to the Hanna Building at 933 Mass. As the Hanna Building has a recessed doorway similar to the one we are requesting, we are a little puzzled as to how our change would significantly "encroach on, damage, or destroy" it.

2.      Standards 1, 2, 5, and 9 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are not met.

a. The storefront at 944 Mass. is recent (March 2004) as is the amount of glazing. The new amount will not change; it will be recessed. Transparency and view will actually be increased with the removal of windows and doors. The doorway and wooden window structures will still exist, be visible, and give the "feeling of containment" referred to in the standards and Downtown Design Guidelines.

b.      The removal of part of the roof behind the front facade in order to meet city regulations for an outdoor area will not be visible from the street, Hanna Building, or other structure. This change is only proposed in order to meet regulations; we would not ask to do this if not required to by the city, as the ceiling is fifteen or more feet above street level.

c.       The ornamental ironwork for the open areas (where the glazing and door were) is decorative and visible only from 2:00a.m when it operates as a security guard against overnight visitors. Other buildings including the Elizabeth Watkins Museum have ironwork on their windows and doors.

d.      The architectural features cited in the staff report in standards 1, 2, 5, and 9 did not exist until six months ago. And, actually, the windows are not arched as the HRC did not approve of that feature; the windows and glazing are square with a strip of curved wood giving the illusion of arch. That wood remains in the new proposal.

3. The Downtown Design Guidelines will not be violated as 944 Mass. will continue to have the three-part storefront appearance of transom area, bulkhead, and display windows. The window areas closest to the sidewalk will not have glazing.

Finally, we wish to remind you that our building was excluded from the designation as part of Lawrence's Downtown Historic District (although we requested consideration) as not meeting guidelines for inclusion. This also excludes us from programs that assist owners in renovations and tax benefits. At the same time, we kept the "historical" features of fifties-era yellow brick, glass block, and transom area when we renovated as necessitated by these same guidelines. Those remain intact in this proposal, but we need to make other changes. We feel that HRC member Sven A's comments at the meeting on Sept. 16, 2004, have great pertinence: As the uses and regulations of downtown Lawrence change, the design guidelines should, too.

 

We would like to request that consideration.

Sincerely,

Jerry and Sue Neverve Red Lyon

944 Massachusetss 785-841-74483