ACTION SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners Dean, Sizemore, Marvin, Alstrom, McKenzie, Hickam and new Student Representative Emily Nightingale
Staff members Lynne Zollner, Amy Miller and Amy Saker.
The following changes were requested to the August 2004 action summary:
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Hickam to approve the August 16, 2004 action summary as revised.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
There was no additional correspondence for the Commission to receive.
ITEM NO. 3: DR-08-67-04: 1424 New York Street; Remodel; Certified Local Government Review Submitted by Jane Allyson Design Enterprises for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Samuel Riggs House (1501 Pennsylvania), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of all elevations, stating the majority of changes were proposed for the eastern elevation.
Staff recommended approval with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jane Montgomery, Jane Allyson Design Enterprises, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the goal of the proposal was to create more usable living space. The applicant proposed enclosing the existing screened porch and replacing the screens with aluminum clad, double-hung windows. Several other windows were proposed for replacement with aluminum clad, double-hung windows and new aluminum clad casements. The property owner believed that few, if any, of the existing windows were original.
The applicant intended to retain the existing exterior columns so the structure would “read the same”, and wrapping trim around the newly enclosed porch to give an appearance of continuity.
The Commission noted Staff’s recommendation for wooden replacement windows and asked if the applicant had considered this option. Ms. Montgomery said the building had many exterior aluminum clad windows and the applicant would like to make replacements to match.
The applicant responded to several questions from the Commission:
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that the guidelines do not specifically address situations in which the majority of existing windows are already clad. For environs properties such as this one, the guidelines say only that repair is the preferable option and, if replacement is necessary, it should be made in kind or with comparable material. Ms. Zollner explained that Staff would always maintain a preference for wood materials. She noted that the applicant was correct in stating many of the existing windows were aluminum clad, but there were also several wood windows in the structure, so “matching the existing elements” could be argued as support for more aluminum clad or more wood windows.
Ms. Zollner said the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has not approved vinyl clad windows to date, but aluminum clad windows have been approved for environs properties.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the Staff Report included suggested changes that were not made part of the recommended conditions of approval. This was because, in Staff’s opinion, these alterations would make a better project, but were not within the Commission’s authority to require per the guidelines.
Comm. Alstrom asked to state for the record that he liked the “different style” of the enclosure proposed below the porch. He preferred this to other “generic” styles and he would return to this project as an example when the Commission discussed 1416 Tennessee.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Hickam to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1424 New York Street as proposed, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs and subject to the following conditions:
1. Complete construction documents with material notations to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator;
2. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work;
3. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property, including the original east wall, before demolition and new construction; (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request)
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-08-68-04: 633 Indiana Street; Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Carl J. and Janice G. Peterson, property owners of record. The property is a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of all elevations, stating changes were proposed on all shown elevations except the south. The proposed changes involved the removal of the existing enclosed porch on the east elevation and construction of a new addition on the west elevation. Other modifications were proposed, most notably the replacement of two existing windows on the west elevation with doors to access a new outdoor deck.
Staff recommended approval of all changes as proposed except for the window-to-door replacement requested for the western elevation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Carl Peterson, property owner, said he was wiling to work with all of Staff’s recommendations, but he would like the Commission to consider removing the restriction against changing the western windows for doors. Mr. Peterson said he would like to have both doorways but could make due with only one. He stated his intent to store original materials on site.
Mr. Peterson described the existing sleeping porch, noting it was awkward to get to and was clearly not part of the original structure. He hoped the changes proposed today would return the structure closer to its original silhouette and roofline. The porch would also have a reduced roof slope.
The applicant responded to questioning that the addition (shed) had been designed with the same form, massing and size as the existing porch area. He agreed to work with Staff on designing the space with windows, rather than a “closed box”.
There was discussion about the applicant’s request to change the existing windows for access (doorways) to the new family room. The applicant said the request made sense if seen from the interior and pointed out that the exterior chimney did not function and would not be visible from the inside.
Comm. Alstrom was concerned that adequate review be given to the overall fenestration pattern of this contributing structure. He suggested that this element be added to Staff’s recommendation that the ARC look at the roofline and window fenestration.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Hickam said he had seen the structure’s interior and felt it did limit use. He was sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to modify the property for better use, but he was concerned about the amount of historic material that would have to be removed to change the western windows for doors. Additionally, it was understood that windows were a significant character-defining feature.
There was reference to another porch that had once existed in front of the house. Staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of rebuilding this part of the original structure, but the applicant expressed no desire to go forward with reconstruction of the porch at this time. Staff recommended the roof pitch for the proposed modifications be set to accommodate the re-addition of the other porch in the future.
The Commission continued their discussion on the windows-to-doors request. It was suggested that a compromise could be reached by requiring one of the two windows to remain. The architects on the Commission stated that approving one window versus two made no difference, and both of them stated difficulty in supporting the requested change.
Staff responded to questioning that the standards allow additions to historic structures to accommodate new uses and functions, but changing the windows to doors was not, in Staff’s opinion, an appropriate use of that allowance.
It was suggested that the project could be approved for the other alterations and the applicant could resubmit for just the window/door access when the rest of the remodel was complete. This idea was rejected for a number of reasons.
There was a comparison made between this project and 700 Tennessee.
Comm. Hickam asked if approving the removal of one window would threaten the process for reviewing contributing structures. Staff replied that a case for approval might be based upon the new use of the building and the need to accommodate modern living patterns.
There was further discussion about the amount of historic material – glass, casing, brick, etc. – that would be removed as part of the window removal.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Sizemore, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 633 Indiana, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Complete construction documents with material notations to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator;
2. The window to the south of the chimney on the west elevation be maintained;
3. The applicant work with the Architectural Review Committee to define the appropriate roof slope for the east elevation porch and the overall fenestration of the structure;
4. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and
5. The applicant will take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and new construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request).
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-08-69-04: 830 New York Street; Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Kenton Knowles for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of St. Luke’s African Methodist Episcopal Church (900 New York), Kansas Register of Historic Places.
Comm. Alstrom was recused.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of all elevations including the porch addition to be removed and replaced.
Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Kenton Knowles spoke on behalf of the property owner, explaining the intent to build an addition on the rear of the structure in place of the existing addition, which was in poor condition. This would involve the replacement of the existing foundation, which was also in poor condition. Mr. Knowles said the replacement structure would match the height of the existing addition.
Mr. Knowles addressed Staff’s concerns about the replacement windows, stating the existing wood windows were not original and those not protected by the addition were rotting. He stated there was evidence that the original windows had been smaller, double-hung, with a center division, and the applicant proposed to replace the existing windows with that style.
The Commission asked about the removal of all the siding on the northeast elevation, as seen in the photographs. Mr. Knowles said the house’s foundation was collapsing and the northeast side of the house had begun to bow inward. The siding had been removed in order to shore up that wall in advance of new construction.
It was verified that, according to the current application, the new construction would have to remain at the same height as the existing addition. If the applicant wanted at a later date to raise the height of the new structure, it would be considered a different project and would have to be resubmitted.
The Commission noted Staff’s concern about the proposed size of the garage, which would take up the majority of the rear yard. It was discussed that the yard was screened on all sides by heavy vegetation and continuous fencing.
The applicant said the existing structure was built too low for the grade of the property and faced runoff issues. He stated the addition was infested with termites and he would like to remove it as soon as possible.
There was discussion about the visibility of the stairs to the separate downstairs apartment. It was suggested that these stairs were not readily visible from the sidewalk and the Commission could condition landscape screening to block the limited view from the listed property across the street.
The applicant described how drainage could be arranged to put runoff in the alley instead of on the neighboring properties.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Hickam said the applicant proposed an intensive use of the subject property, but the neighborhood was an urbanized area. Although he was “not accustomed to seeing that much structure on that size of lot”, he asked how consistent the proposal was with the rest of the neighborhood. It was noted that the area contained several examples of 0’ lot line construction on the alley.
It was pointed out that the changes to the property would not be visible from the listed property and would be an overall improvement of the site.
There was discussion about the applicant’s belief that the proposed aluminum clad windows were suitably compatible and would allow the application of trim detail to match the original.
The Commission verified that any changes to the proposal must be submitted to the HRA. If the HRA found the changes were minimal, they may be approved administratively. If, however, the HRA determined the changes were substantial, a new application must be made to the Commission.
It was also clarified that construction documents as recommended in Staff’s conditions could be submitted to the HRA at the same time as the building permit application was submitted to Neighborhood Resources. The building permit would not be approved until the HRA released the project.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 830 New York Street, based on a determination that the project would not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Complete construction documents with material notations to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator;
2. Compatible materials shall be used for windows in the addition;
3. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and
4. The applicant will take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before demolition and new construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor and Comm. Alstrom recused.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-08-70-04: 909 Rhode Island Street; Addition; Certificate of Appropriateness Review and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jerry R. Pruitt, property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Social Service League (905 Rhode Island), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also listed as a contributing structure to the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and is in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the subject property, noting its location directly adjacent to a listed property (Social Service League).
Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. These conditions included a requirement that the applicant work with the ARC on reducing the overall massing of the addition.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jerry Pruitt, property owner, said he was curious about the process of ARC review and that he would like clarification on Staff’s recommendation to “reduce the overall massing of the addition”.
The Commission was concerned about the lack of detail in the submitted drawings, saying it was difficult to visualize the proposal. Mr. Pruitt gave the dimensions of the existing structure and explained the proposal was to construct a second story on the back half of the existing house. The footprint of the structure would not change.
Mr. Pruitt said he thought the primary concern with the project would be the retention of the original gable roof line. He indicated his willingness to work with Staff on developing an alternate design that would meet his square footage needs with minimal change to the original structure. The Commission discussed interior design options to allow retention of the entire roof line.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that reducing the massing of the addition would be challenging; visibility of the addition from the main façade and from the adjacent listed property were of primary concern. Mr. Pruitt said the 6’ addition would be minimally visible from the main façade. Comm. Alstrom suggested lowering the ceiling of the first floor to allow the addition at its full proposed height with a reduced mass. Mr. Pruitt agreed this would achieve the goal of creating his new square footage while reducing the massing of the project, but he was unwilling to agree to this modification.
Mr. Pruitt said he thought the Commission would be lenient with his proposal based on the height of the buildings on both sides of his property. The Commission explained that their decision was based on the guidelines, and their consideration centered on what was appropriate for this building as a contributing structure.
The applicant responded to questioning that he did not know the exact square footage of the existing home, only that it was “too small”. He asked for more direction from the Commission about the additional information they would like to see. The Commission said they would like to have more pictorial evidence that the addition would not be visible from the street and detailed before and after drawings of the structure.
It was suggested that the level of additional review needed would overburden the ARC, and this level of modification should be worked out with Staff.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Alstrom, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to deny the Certified Local Government Review and the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 909 Rhode Island Street, based on a determination that the project did not meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for contributing structures and that it would significantly encroach upon, damage or destroy the environs of a listed property.
Motion carried 5-1, with Comm. Hickam voting in opposition and Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-08-71-04: 944 Massachusetts Street; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness Review, Certified Local Government Review and Downtown Design Guideline 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.
Staff found the proposal did not meet the criteria for any of the three levels of review and recommended denial of the project on all three levels.
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.
ITEM NO. 8: DR-08-72-04: 716 Mississippi Street; Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by John F. Preis, the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of all elevations including the porch proposed for replacement with a permanent addition. The addition would be slightly larger than the existing porch and would be enclosed with a door. Staff described the addition as “typical”, and noted the direct line of sight to the listed property.
Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The Commission asked if the applicant was amenable to Staff’s recommendation to recess the addition from the northern elevation. Ms. Zollner said Staff was not able to reach the applicant for comment. The Commission had the option to table the item if they would like to receive comment from the applicant before making a determination, since the applicant was not present this evening.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Alstrom asked that condition 2 be expanded to specifically state that siding and fenestration patterns would be submitted to the HRA for review. Other Commissioners felt the conditions as written sufficiently addressed these elements.
It was verified with Staff that the current application involved no change in window placement and that the new siding was proposed to be compatible with the existing in terms of material and width.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Sizemore, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 716 Mississippi Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 9: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the August 19, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the August 19, 2004 regular meeting.
The ARC met to discuss the rear deck of Quinton’s Deli on Massachusetts Street. The change to the roof structure for the deck/patio was approved by the ARC.
The ARC also met to discuss 740 Ohio Street to make sure the addition was adequately recessed to delineate the addition as new construction. The project was approved.
Administrative Reviews
DR-08-62-04: 1045 Kentucky Street; Mechanical Screening; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Brenda Sampson, the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of the Dr. Frederick Morse House (1041 Tennessee), National and Lawrence Register of Historic Places; the Oread Historic District, Lawrence Register of Historic Places; Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places, and the Col. James and Eliza Blood House (1015 Tennessee), National Register of Historic Places.
DR-08-63-04: 1000 Massachusetts; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places; the Shalor Eldridge Residence (945 Rhode Island), Kansas Register of Historic Places; the Watkins Bank Building (1047 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, and the English Lutheran Church (1040 New Hampshire), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-08-64-04: 623 Vermont Street; 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 Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District; the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places, and the J.B. Shane/Shane-Thompson Photographic Studio (615 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-08-65-04: 825 Vermont; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Star Signs & Graphics, Inc. for the property owner of record. The property is in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places; the Carnegie Library (200 W. 9th); and the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House (809 Vermont), National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
DR-08-66-04: 1733 Massachusetts Street; Addition; Certified Local Government Review Submitted by Fasttrack, Inc. for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Eugene Goodrich House (1711 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places.
DR-08-73-04: 1910 Haskell Street; Patio; Certificate of Appropriateness Review and Certified Local Government Review. The property is located in the environs of the Robert Miller House (1111 E. 19th), National and Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
DR-08-74-04: 643 Massachusetts; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Bob Schulte for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the J. B. Shane Thompson Studio (615 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic district; 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.
Staff presented a brief overview for all the administratively approved projects.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve all Administrative reviews as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since August 19, 2004.
There were no BZA requests for review
D. General public comment.
There were no additional comments from the public.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
Betty Alderson, Lawrence resident, said she had been to other cities where smoking was not allowed in the Downtown area and she thought with in five years the businesses and residents of Lawrence would “wonder what all the fuss was about”.
It was established that Mr. Neverve (944 Massachusetts) made his application to the HRC with the belief that it would be denied and with the intent of appealing to the City Commission. This would be the first appeal of an HRC denial of a smoking area.
It was discussed that the City Commission would be able to consider Mr. Neverve’s request based on a broader scope than allowed for the HRC. The appeal was of the HRC’s denial, not the validity of that decision based on the HRC’s given guidelines.
Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that Staff had not received any inquiries abut rooftop patios in the Historic District as a method of dealing with the smoking ordinance.
ITEM NO. 10: Proposals for 2005 Historic Preservation Fund Grant Applications
Ms. Zollner explained this was an opportunity for the Commission and the public to suggest projects for 2005 grant funding applications. Three grant applications were already being prepared:
The Commission discussed restoration of the Breezedale monuments. Staff explained this kind of project (brick & mortar) was not typically considered for Historic Preservation Fund Grant but it was eligible for a Heritage Trust Fund.
Ms. Zollner asked that additional recommendations be forwarded by email or in writing to Staff as soon as possible to allow time for a preliminary application to be prepared in October.
ADJOURN – 9:25 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.