DRAFT minutes from September 16, 2004 HRC meeting
ITEM NO. 7: DR-08-71-04: 944 Massachusetts Street; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness Review and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jerry Neverve, for the property owner of record. The property is located in Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the environs of the Hanna Building (933 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places, and the Shalor Eldridge House (945 Rhode Island), Kansas and Lawrence Registers of Historic Places. The property is located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the subject property’s storefront on Massachusetts Street, noting it was approved for significant alterations within the last 12 months.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jerry Neverve, property owner, described his proposal for the creation of an open air smoking patio, which had to be completely open to the outside to meet fire code requirements (removable panels of glass or other material would not meet the open air requirement). The applicant requested the removal of the existing glass and replacement with ornamental ironwork. The storefront would be recessed and the roof above the open area would be removed, leaving in place the transom and the existing rafters.
Mr. Neverve addressed Staff’s concerns about the removal of historic materials, pointing out there was little historic material left due to the storefront alteration done in 2003. The transom would remain and the only historic material removed would be the roofing.
The Staff Report outlined concerns about the removal of the storefront glass, to which Mr. Neverve responded that the purpose of windows was to see through them. This would still be possible with the proposed ironwork bars. He noted that the Watkins Museum on Massachusetts Street had iron bars on its windows.
The Commission asked if they were reviewing the recessed storefront as well as the streetscape/patio. Ms. Zollner said this was so, explaining that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards specifically addressed arcades and patios and provided guidance for review of that element. The Downtown Design Guidelines should be used to review the recessed storefront. She noted that the Downtown Design Guidelines discussed storefronts located at the property line or “slightly recessed”, with a three-part system of glazing, bulkhead, and transom.
Mr. Neverve said the storefront would retain the three-part system, but without the glazing. Ms. Zollner outlined the Downtown Design Guidelines specific direction about glazing as an integral element of the storefront; windows were considered as more than a place to look outside.
A comparison was made between this project and the request for the Jackpot Saloon. Comm. Alstrom thought changes were needed in the Downtown Design Guidelines to address the recent smoking ordinance.
The Commission expressed concern about weather damage to exposed rafters and the adjacent buildings following removal of the roof.
Mr. Neverve said he understood the Commission’s position on the proposal, and he was expecting their denial. He was following the process that would allow him to go before the governing body to appropriately address the impact of the smoking ban and his business need for the proposed changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
An unidentified member of the public referenced the conflict between the new smoking ban and the need of businesses to fulfill the needs of their patrons. The Commission responded that their charge was to consider the preservation of structures. The Commission did not have the authority to address use of the building or the economic needs of property owners.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission noted the fact that this project was subject to review under three separate sets of guidelines (COA, CLG, DTDG). Comm. Alstrom said the Downtown Design Guidelines were focused on retail storefronts, and he would like to see them modified allow other types of storefronts that might have existed in the past. He gave the example of a blacksmith shop. Comm. Alstrom said he would like the downtown guidelines modified to allow alternate fenestration patterns and storefronts that may not meet the current fully glazed requirements. Other Commissioners pointed out that the Commission was responsible for maintaining the historic character of Lawrence and that documentation of these ‘alternate uses” having existed would be needed to recommend changes to the Downtown Design Guidelines.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Sizemore, seconded by Comm. Alstrom to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 944 Massachusetts, based on a determination that the project would encroach upon, damage or destroy the environs of a listed property and it did not meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines or the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.