ACTION SUMMARY OCTOBER 21, 2004
CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6TH STREET
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Commissioners Dean, Alstrom, Marvin, McKenzie, Hickam and Student Representative Emily Nightingale
Staff members Lynne Zollner, Amy Miller and Amy Saker.
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the September 16, 2004 action summary as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 2: CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 3: DR-02-18-04: 900 E 15th Street; Evidence Storage and Fencing; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by the City of Lawrence, property owner of record. The property is located within the environs of the Samuel Riggs House (1501 Pennsylvania), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of all elevations, including views from surrounding properties, including the Riggs House, National Register of Historic Places.
APPLIANT PRESENTATION
City Manager Mike Wildgen and Officer Paul Fellers were present to answer questions on behalf of the city (applicant). Mr. Wildgen, in response to questioning, described the proposed outdoor lighting for the facility, saying it was designed to minimize spillover. It was noted that lighting could be part of the environs review and would also be addressed as part of the site plan review by the City Commission.
The Commission asked why the item was deferred in March and then took several months to return. Staff explained the neighborhood raised significant concerns about the city’s original proposal in March. The city requested deferral to work with the neighborhood to address these concerns. In response to the neighborhood, the city decided to do a more comprehensive site plan and the item had been delayed while this new plan was created.
The Commission asked how the HRC review would “mesh” with the site plan review. Ms. Zollner replied that these were separate review processes. The City Commission would receive a copy of the HRC Staff Report and a summary of the HRC’s action, but the decisions of the two bodies were independent and final (unless appealed) for their separate reviews.
It was clarified that the 81’ radio tower which had been in place for many years had been removed. The antennae proposed for data communication between this facility and the rest of the Police Department would not exceed 81’ unless communication needs required additional height.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Austin Turney, owner of the listed property, read into the record a statement of his concerns. He paraphrased the standards, saying the Commission was faced with the question of, “how have the environs historically been used” and, “how should the environs…be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.”
Mr. Turney’s statement included a description of the property’s past uses. He explained how the property had once been surrounded by commercial and industrial uses in response to its use for the railroad. When the railroad use was discontinued, the surrounding area began developing in the residential manner that exists today. Elements like the school, the creek and the recreation path confirmed the residential character of the area that the neighborhood would now like to preserve.
Mr. Turney said the neighborhood was concerned that approving the proposed use would make permanent an element that was now an intrusion and would encourage similar uses in what had become a residential environment.
Pat Kedhe, Barker Neighborhood resident, said she had been to all of the meetings between the applicant and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association. She felt the city had made a recognizable attempt to address the neighborhood’s concerns between the original proposal and now.
The Neighborhood Association had agreed to the new proposal, but Ms. Kedhe personally had never thought this use was appropriate for the area. She understood the Commission’s review was based on the visual impact of the project on the environs, but she asked the Commission to consider the environmental and character impact of the proposed use.
Ms. Kedhe said the city had stated that no guns and no drugs would be stored at this facility and that this restriction would be placed on the site plan. However, she was concerned that, in a few years, the facility would gradually become a storage area for these dangerous items. She suggested there were other, more appropriate city-owned properties (east of town) for this use.
Ms. Kedhe said it was not technically part of the Commission’s review, but she asked them to take special consideration for properties that lay between two neighborhoods. These properties did not receive the “full scrutiny” of either neighborhood. She referenced the recent removal of three structures adjacent to the Ludington-Thacher House.
Patricia Sinclair, 331 Johnson Avenue, said she had been an 11-year resident and homeowner in the Barker Neighborhood. She said another area resident, Dr. Tom Christie at 621 E. 15th, was not able to attend and had given his approval for her to speak in opposition on his behalf. She said Dr. Christie had made significant changes to his home and he wanted to preserve the current residential character of the area.
Ms. Sinclair disagreed with Staff’s statement that there would be a minimal line-of-sight from the listed property to the subject property. She did not believe the proposed fencing met the environs standards or the zoning code and was concerned about the visual impact and possible electrical interference of the proposed communications tower.
Ms. Sinclair was also concerned that the screening landscaping would not be adequate and a number of mature trees removed for the recent stormwater drainage project were being “traded” for new, less mature trees.
Ms. Sinclair described the uses surrounding the subject property as primarily large lot, single-family residential, noting one multi-family development and the pasture, barn, and farmhouse to the west. She said the proposed project would bring additional noise and light to the area as traffic moved in and out of the facility.
Ms. Sinclair was concerned that the facility would need to expand in the future, taking up what little greenspace was currently provided, and that adding pavement would not help the existing stormwater situation recently brought to light with the city’s multi-million dollar drainage project. She said the city stated when it bought the property that stormwater management was the first priority, with greenspace second and that the purchase had been done with stormwater utility funds. She said the project was claimed as a Capital Improvements Project, but the 2004-2009 CIP showed only one building on the subject property.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that the subject property had been purchased on 1999 in two tracts. Stormwater drainage improvements had been done and additional changes were scheduled for the area east of the railroad track. Both buildings had been in place for many years (1927 building one, mid 1950’s building two) and the city proposed no changes to the existing buildings other than the landscaping modifications as shown on the site plan.
Mr. Wildgen said guns were not kept in this kind of facility, and expressed his willingness to take any member of the public on a tour of the high-security facilities where gun storage was done. He responded to questioning that after-hours traffic was possible but would not be frequent. Vehicle storage would be entirely enclosed and stored vehicles would be those taken from crime scenes - this would not be an impound center.
Several members of the Commission expressed sympathy for the neighborhood’s concerns, but explained the review standards clearly stated the criteria for the environs review and did not include use unless rezoning was involved. Since the project did not propose any visible change to the exterior of the existing buildings, they were not able to identify a definable impact on the environs.
The HRC suggested the neighborhood address their concerns to the City Commission during the site plan review, which did involve the elements (lighting, traffic, nuisance) the residents spoke about.
Comm. Hickam said he was concerned about the city’s decision to use this property for the proposed use. He understood the residents’ concerns that the placement of an institutional use would interrupt the neighborhood’s attempt to transition completely to a residential area. He said it appeared the city had made a good faith effort to minimize the impact of the project, but he was disappointed in the decision to use the property in this manner. Comm. Hickam said he would prefer the property be used for greenspace and residential purposes.
Chairman Marvin reminded the Commission that they did not have the authority to consider use as part of this environs review. Use can be considered only when the proposal is associated with a rezoning request, such as a special use permit or a subdivision of property. In this case, the proposed use matched the existing zoning.
Patricia Sinclair was allowed to address the Commission again, and asked if the division of the property for different uses qualified as subdivision. It was clarified that this was not the case.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 900 E. 15th Street, based on a determination that the project met the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed structure or its environs. Approval was 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.
Motion carried 3-2, with Comm.’s McKenzie, Dean, and Marvin voting in favor. Comm.’s Alstrom and Hickam voted in opposition, as did Student Commissioner Nightingale.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-09-79-04: 701 New Hampshire Street; Fire Escape; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Laura Martin-Eagle for the property owner of record. The property is a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed all elevations, pointing out the southern elevation where the applicant proposed creating a new opening for a fire escape door. The south elevation also contained the only window in need of repair.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Matt Fowler, agent for the property owner, said he had supplied a fundamental drawing and was open to advice about how to design the required fire egress as compatibly as possible. He expressed his intent to clean and reuse existing brick and match the existing mortar.
It was clarified that the fire door was requested following a citation by the Fire Marshall and the window repair was requested by Neighborhood Resources. The property had recently been listed as part of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District therefore the proposed changes had to come before the Commission.
It was verified that the existing downspout would have to be moved and the guttering might have to be replaced.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that an attempt had been made to find an existing opening in the elevation that could be used for the necessary doorway. Because of the way the interior was divided, with a separate business at each existing window, the fire door had to be placed as proposed to allow equal, central access to all tenants.
It was verified that the applicant was willing to work with Staff on the final design and materials.
The Commission discussed the change as a way to allow a historic building to comply with modern codes and continue use.
It was noted that the building did qualify for tax credits and the applicant was pursuing this option.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 701 New Hampshire, based on a determination that the project met the language and intent of the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and the Downtown Design Guidelines and that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations, including structural repair methods for the masonry wall, to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit.
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 before and after construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-09-82-04: 909 Rhode Island Street; Addition; Certificate of Appropriateness Review and Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Jerry R. Pruitt, the 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 a contributing structure to the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed pictures of the front and rear elevations, indicating the area the applicant proposed to place the proposed addition. It was noted that the subject property was immediately adjacent to a locally listed property and was a contributing structure to the Rhode Island Street historic district.
Ms. Zollner explained that applicant had worked extensively with Staff to modify his request to address the concerns stated by the Commission when the original submittal was denied in September.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jerry Pruitt, property owner, said he was amenable to the recommendations of Staff. He particularly noted the recommendations that the windows be replaced with sliding windows that appeared to be double hung. He said he would be willing to make this modification, subject to egress requirements and his own budget.
Mr. Pruitt referenced Staff’s suggestion that he return the front porch to its original state. This was beyond his budget today, but he would like to accomplish this some time in the future.
The applicant noted the provision of a letter of support from a neighborhood resident and explained the design changes made with the help of Staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Andrew Peterson, 923 Rhode Island, spoke in favor of this type of project in general, since it encouraged owner occupancy in the neighborhood. He supported allowing property owners to rehabilitate their property, making it habitable according to modern standards.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm.’s McKenzie and Dean stated their appreciation of the work done to make the proposal better suited to the environs. Comm. Alstrom was concerned that the addition was still too large for the area and that the massing on top of the existing structure gave the property an appearance he felt was not appropriate for this location. He questioned the applicant’s inability to finance the porch repair when he was able to pay for the proposed addition. Staff clarified that the front porch was not in disrepair. The suggested improvements involved the replication of original detailing.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 909 Rhode Island, based on a determination that the project met the language and intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines and Chapter 22 of the Historic Resources Code. The Commission further determined that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. Complete construction documents with material notations, window details and trim details 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; and
3. The applicant takes complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before and after construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried 4-1, with Comm. Alstrom voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Nightingale voted in favor.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-09-84-04: 1346 Louisiana Street; Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Design and Construction Management, The University of Kansas. The property is located in the environs of Spooner Hall (1335-1345 Louisiana) and the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures of all elevations and the garage proposed for demolition.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jim Long, Kansas University Provost Office and Chair of the Campus Historic Preservation Board (CHPB) spoke on behalf of the university. Mr. Long explained the property was subject to cross-jurisdictional review due to its location in the environs of listed properties on both campus and private property.
Mr. Long said the CHPB received positive public comment from the Oread and University Place neighborhoods during the university’s review of the project. The CHPB had approved the project, based on a determination of no negative impact on any listed property or its environs.
Jim Modig, Director of Design Management for the university, was also present to address the Commission. Mr. Modig referenced additional materials supplied tonight in response to the city Staff Report. He showed a rendering of the project and described the intended renovations and rehabilitative efforts.
Significant changes included repair and reconstruction of the sinking foundation, re-siding with non-lead based materials and re-roofing with slate colored asphalt shingles. The university also proposed complete removal and replacement of the existing porch, claiming extensive disrepair. The existing garage was proposed for removal and replacement with open parking spaces, and a patio would be created at the northwest corner of the primary structure.
The applicant responded to questioning that there was no opposition to documenting the garage prior to demolition.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSON DISCUSSION
Comm. Alstrom said he supported the project in general, but he was concerned about the proposed vinyl clad windows. He said the Commission had, in the past, required wood windows for contributing structures and he would rather this project use wood windows with spray on vinyl finish.
The Commission asked if they should require cost estimates as they had with previous demolition projects. Ms. Zollner said this was typically associated with proposals for demolition and new construction of listed properties.
Comm. Alstrom said it was important the replacement windows were compatible with other structures in the environs as well as with the existing windows on the subject building.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Alstrom, seconded by Comm. Hickam to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1346 Louisiana based on a determination that the project meets the language and intent of the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Replacement windows shall be wood with vinyl coating;
2. Complete construction documents, with material notations to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator;
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 take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property, including the garage, before demolition and new construction; (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request)
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Hickam congratulated the university on their efforts to preserve this structure for an appropriate reuse in a neighborhood that has undergone a lot of transition.
Comm. McKenzie said she would like to support the project, but she was not comfortable judging the type of windows used. She would like to leave this decision to the university and city Staff. Ms. Zollner cautioned the Commission that the SHPO had approved the use of aluminum clad windows and disapproved the use of vinyl clad windows in the environs. Staff was not aware of a determination by the SHPO on vinyl coated windows.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Marvin to substitute the motion on the floor with a motion to approve the project subject to the conditions presented in the city Staff Report.
Motion to make the substitution carried 4-1, with Comm. Alstrom in opposition. Student Commissioner Nightingale voted in favor.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1346 Louisiana based on a determination that the project meets the language and intent of the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was 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; and
3. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property, including the garage, before demolition and new construction; (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request)
Motion carried 4-1 with Comm. Alstrom in opposition. Student Commissioner Nightingale voted in favor.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-09-85-04: 800 Massachusetts Street; Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by GLPM Architects for the property owners of record. The property is a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Showed elevations on Massachusetts and & 8thStreets, noting the proposed ATM location and the only window proposed for replacement.
APPLICANT PRSENTATION
Brad Chindamo spoke on behalf on Central National Bank. He said the applicant had worked extensively with Staff on where to locate the ATM and night depository, which the applicant felt were critical elements for the business. Ideally the bank would like those services on Massachusetts Street, but understood Staff’s concerns about the visual impact on the historic district. Mr. Chindamo said the applicant was amenable to placing the ATM and night depository as far from Massachusetts Street as possible while meeting ADA requirements.
Dale Glenn, GLPM Architects, described a variety of alternatives the applicant had discussed with Staff. The primary concern was that none of the existing building openings on 8th Street would meet the ADA requirements for the ATM and night depository. Existing openings on Massachusetts Street would meet ADA standards, but Staff did not support this placement of the ATM.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that there would be no internal access to the ATM or the night depository
There was discussion about existing ATM’s on Massachusetts, which some Commissioners felt were not visually appropriate. Staff explained that these were apparently justified by the fact that existing openings were being used so no historic materials had to be removed. Ms. Zollner also pointed out that the existing ATM’s were placed before the Downtown Historic District was in place.
Comm. Alstrom asked if there would be an awning over the ATM and if the business’s sign would be on that awning. The applicant said an awning over the ATM was proposed, but signage was not yet determined.
It was established that the applicant had offered to save removed historic materials on site and the Commission could add that as a condition if they chose.
The Commission discussed Staff’s recommended condition that the applicant work with Staff on possible alternate locations for the ATM/night depository. The Commission did not see any possible alternatives and suggested removing this condition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Alstrom to approve the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 800 Massachusetts Street based on a determination that the project meets the language and intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Downtown Design Guidelines and will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
1. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and
3. The applicant take complete black and white photo-documentation of the property before and after construction. (City staff will assist with documentation at the applicant’s request.)
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, with Student Commissioner Nightingale voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 8: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the September 16, 2004 regular meeting
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the September 16, 2004 regular meeting.
The ARC met to discuss the addition and remodel project at 633 Indiana. Specifically, the committee looked at the overall fenestration pattern and the shed addition. The committee made suggestions and revised drawings have been submitted by the applicant and are under review by Staff.
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Marvin to approve the Administrative Reviews as presented by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, 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 was no additional public comment.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members
L-04-01-04: Resolution recommending Final Environs definition for the Zinn-Burroughs House located at 1927 Learnard Avenue.
Ms. Zollner explained that the environs definition was already approved and this description was provided for the Commission’s information before the proposal moved on to the City Commission. Staff would wait for comments from the HRC before placing the issue on the City Commission agenda.
Staff told the HRC that the City Commission would be hearing the appeal for the Red Lyon Tavern on Tuesday, October 26th. The HRC should forward to Staff any comments or concerns they would like the City Commission made aware of, beyond the information included in the HRC’s meeting summary regarding that proposal.
It was discussed that the City Commission was allowed a broader range of review and were not confined to the historic standards and guidelines. The City would be looking for a “feasible and prudent alternative” to the applicant’s proposal. If this alternative could not be found, the City Commission would be within their authority to approve the project as proposed. The HRC expressed strong concern about this possibility and it was suggested that denial of the proposal was a feasible and prudent alternative.
It was discussed that the applicant’s request was unreasonable and was made in response to a political decision made by the City Commission. It was not the place of the HRC to find a reasonable solution to an unreasonable request.
ADJOURN – 8:55 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.