HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION
Action Summary
February 17, 2005
7:00 p.m., Auditorium, Lawrence Memorial Hospital
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners Present: Marvin, Lodwick, Alstrom, Sizemore, Dean, McKenzie and Hickam
Staff Present: Zollner and Miller
_______________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 7:07 pm
ITEM NO. 1: Action summary
The following changes were requested to the January 20, 2005 Action Summary:
· Change St. Luke’s AME Church to St. Luke AME Church
· Change “line of sign” under Item #1 to read “line of sight”.
Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the January 20, 2005 Action Summary as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
ITEM 2: CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 3: DR-11-103-04: 610 Ohio Street; Demolition/New Construction Ancillary Structure; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Chris Combs, for the property owner of record. The property is a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
Comm. Hickam recused himself.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented pictures taken of front (West) elevation of the house.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chris Combs wanted to make sure that the commission had the corrected plans and knew that the design had been to the Architectural Review Committee. He explained that since the last commission meeting where the commission deferred the item pending design changes, that he had changed the design from a gable front roof to a flat roof. He also explained that the tall fence on the north side of the property would tie in with the proposed structure and be made of the same materials that the structure is sided with.
Public Comment
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Commission Discussion
Comm. Dean wanted clarification from the applicant concerning the fence in the front of the structure. The applicant stated that the front fence would remain unchanged.
Comm. Lodwick commented that the trim members appear larger than a 1X8 in the drawings and could possibly be read as heavier elements than he would like to see. The applicant stated that all materials that were called out on the drawings would be used.
Comm. Lodwick wanted clarification on the two different perspective drawings and how each one had a different fence that tied into the main structure. He was concerned about the connection between the fence and the structure.
Comm. Dean stated that he wanted something to differentiate that the connection was different from the main structure.
Staff wanted clarification as to whether the ARC wanted a differentiation or not.
Comm. Sizemore stated that he didn’t want a differentiation and that he thought the 1X8 trim was acceptable.
The applicant stated that the fence would have a shiplap detail for privacy.
Comm. Sizemore once again stated that this building was built without approval to begin with and that demolishing the structure would create an economic hardship and therefore integrating the structure into the fence would minimize it.
Comm. Marvin wanted clarification on where the roof would drain. The applicant stated that Roof would pitch slightly toward the structure.
Comm. Dean stated that he intended to support the ARC, but wants to recognize Staff concerns. If it hadn’t been built, then he would feel differently. He stated that staff concerns outlined in the staff report are legitimate and if it were normal circumstances then he would take different action.
Action Taken
Motioned by Comm. Lodwick, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 610 Ohio Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs. Approval was 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; and
2. Complete construction documents with material notations and trim details to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator.
Motion carried 6-0-1, with Comm. Hickam recused.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-01-05-05: 835 New York Street; Porch Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Dan Hermreck for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and Saint Luke’s African Methodist Episcopal Church (900 New York), Kansas Register of Historic Places.
Staff Presentation
Staff presented pictures showing all elevations of the structure.
Applicant Presentation
Dan Hermrick, speaking on behalf of the property owner of record described the project as two parts: replacing the existing front porch and adding a side porch onto the structure. He explained that the existing porch would be built using the same basic form and materials. A railing would be added and embellished with brackets. The side porch has an indications of where a shed roof and a column used to be. They are proposing a column against the wall and one out near the brick pier with a simple shed roof and gutters that would line up with the main structure. There would be no embellishment on the side porch so as to not compete with the main structure.
Public Comment
Chris Combs stated that the proposed plans should be available to the public so that they could comment. Comm. Alstrom suggested that the plans should be integrated into the power point presentation.
Commission Discussion
Comm. Hickam discussed the basement as a side note with the applicant. The previous owner was a metal-smith and there are tin ceilings throughout the house. Comm. Hickam stated that it was a fascinating house.
Comm. Dean questioned the applicant on the gable bracket and whether it was original.
The applicant stated that the gable bracket had been there for a while and that the brackets on the porch would mimic the same detail.
Comm. Alstrom questioned the applicant about the side addition. The applicant stated that he did not know when it was built. Comm. Alstrom also wanted to know it there was an occupied space in under the concrete floor on the porch. The applicant said no.
The applicant also stated that the main porch steps are stone and will be maintained. The applicant is replacing the old concrete with new concrete.
Comm. Lodwick would like to see a differentiation between something that is old and a recreated something that is new with reference to the brackets. He wanted to make sure that this is not getting too ornate. The applicant has stated that there is not enough headroom to place more embellishment on the porch. Applicant brought up the Rockhill House on Kentucky and how the new building mimicked the embellishments on the porch, but were kept simple enough that you could tell that they were modern.
Comm. Alstom agreed with Comm. Lodwicks statement about the fact that the embellishments will not be used on the side porch, but on the front porch only.
Comm. Sizemore stated that this project is only environs, and does not think it will have an adverse impact on the listed property.
Comm. Alstrom brought up the fact that it is reversible. He also stated that he was happy that someone was making the effort to improve the property.
Comm. Marvin wanted to clarify that there would be a distinction between new and old materials.
Comm. McKenzie wanted to encourage the applicant to replace the porch, but felt that mandating the applicant to remove the brackets would be contradictory.
Comm. Lodwick once again stated that this was only and environs issue versus a project that was individually listed. The commissioners clarified that there were two different issues, the embellishment of the existing porch and the new porch itself.
Comm Lodwick wanted clarification on the column that would be embedded between he old and new porch. The applicant explained that this detail would be constructed as it was drawn.
Comm. Dean would like to reiterate staff concerns about the brackets that were outlined in the staff report.
Action Taken
Motioned by Comm. Dean, seconded by Comm. Lodwick to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 835 New York Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic structure or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
3. Complete construction documents with material notations, window details and trim details to be approved by the Historic Resources Administrator;
4. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.
5. The property owner will allow staffs access to the property to photo document the project, prior to the commencement of any construction work.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-01-08-05: 1011 Massachusetts Street; 2nd Story Addition; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for the property owner of record. The property is a non-contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
Staff Presentation
Staff presented pictures of all elevations of the property.
Applicant presentation
Lance Adams, of Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the property owner of record. He explained that they were originally looking at a second story addition to the building. He stated that he did research at Watkins Community Museum and that there were also indications that there was probably a second story on the building at some point. He stated that he was not able to date this second story. He found evidence of flashing on the buildings to either side, as well as evidence of a bump out that suggested that there was a second story at one time. He did not come across a photo for the second story, but came across a photo of the Bennett Building from the early 20th century. He expressed that he and the client were disappointed that they could not do the second story and felt that they tried to make the building fit the Downtown Design Guidelines.
The applicant felt that the rear of building was hard to address since the materials varied. The applicant stated that they will be creating a stucco cover for the rear façade.
Public Comment
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Commission Discussion
Comm. Alstrom wanted clarification concerning the recessed entryway. The applicant stated that they did recess the doorway for ADA reasons and the finished floor of the store is about 5 inches up from the sidewalk. Part of the interior floor will need to be rebuilt.
Comm. Lodwick questioned the applicant on the original application where a second story was proposed. The Applicant stated that originally he tried to keep the windows on the same level as neighboring windows and elevate the corbelling above the second story. The applicant stated that he brought the single-story proposal back to the commission after staff stated that they could not recommend the two story proposal for approval.
Comm. Alstrom wanted to state that as a member of the ARC he wasn’t against the two story structure, but that he was against the demolition of historic materials. The applicant stated that he could not step back the second story. Staff clarified that they worked with the applicant and took the two story proposal to the ARC for feedback since the Secretary of the Interior’s standards were not met with the two-story proposal. The state law does not differentiate between non-contributing and contributing structures within a historic district and therefore they are held to the same standard. Staff clarified that the second story proposal would have demolished historic fabric from the 1920’s. The second story proposal would have violated the Secretary of the Interior’s standards because it has achieved historic significance in its own right, even if it might have met the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Comm. Lodwick brought up the fact that there is a portion of the Downtown Design Guidelines that says that historic material should be maintained where possible.
Comm. Dean stated that this is a dilemma that the commission faces.
Staff stated that the Commission will see redevelopment proposals and the downtown is a mix of two-story and one-story.
Comm. Sizemore questioned staff on the historic evidence that there was once a second story and what the commission could weigh. Staff stated that to recreate something that once existed by taking down materials that have achieved historical significance in their own right was a contradiction and did not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Comm. Lodwick restated that the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards were guidelines to follow and it is the issues where there is uncertainty that creates problems. Comm. Dean stated that that was the difference between recreation and restoration.
The Applicant stated the he would like condition two changed to read that Staff could approve changes unless they were major. Staff stated that small changes can always be made administratively.
Action Taken
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Dean to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1011 Massachusetts Steert, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Downtown Design Guidelines. Approval was based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs, and was subject to the following 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.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the January 20, 2004 regular meeting.
There were no demolition permits for review.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the January 20, 2004 regular meeting.
The ARC met to discuss the project at 610 Ohio Street and Committee Members declined to give a report. .
Administrative Reviews
DR-01-01-05: 1528 Tennessee Street; Window Replacement; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Mike Jacobson, the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee), the Ludington-Thacher House (1613 Tennessee), and the William Priestly House (1505 Kentucky), National Register of Historic Places.
DR-01-02-05: 746 Massachusetts Street; Sidewalk Dining; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Overland Pizza Company for the property owner of record. The property is a contributing structure to Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and in the environs of the House building (729-731 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.
It was clarified that staff is working with the applicant on the site planning process and that the applicant was bound by the conditions in the staff report that required that the dining area extend no more than 7’1” from the structure into the public right of way. The commission expressed concerns over the Leo Burman plaque that is located near the southwest corner of the building.
Comm. Dean expressed concerns over sidewalk dining blocking the pedestrian use of the sidewalks within the downtown area. Staff clarified that sidewalk dining has always been done administratively and that planning staff developed guidelines many years ago. Those guidelines were forwarded to the City Commission with the HRC’s approval and the City Commission decided not to adopt them. With the increase in sidewalk dining applications, staff and the commission would like the proposal brought back to the City Commission.
Comm. Alstrom stated that he would like to see the proposed guidelines with a requirement that would specify that the width of the sidewalk dining area could be no more than half of the width of the sidewalk instead of having a 6’ clearance specified.
Staff expressed concern that bringing it back to the HRC would slow the process down.
DR-01-04-05: 628 Louisiana Street; Roof Rehabilitation; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Anthony Backus for the property owners of record. The property is a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the environs of the Pinckney I Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.
This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
DR-01-06-05: 1140 Mississippi Street; Shed Addition Demolition and Reconstruction; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by James Slough, the property owner of record. The property is a contributing structure to the Hancock District, National Register of Historic Places and is in the environs of the Jane A. Snow Residence (706 W. 12th), Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
DR-01-07-05: 945 Rhode Island Street; Summer Kitchen Repair; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review. Submitted by Mary Lisa Pike, the property owner of record. The property is listed as a contributing structure to the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and is listed on the Kansas and Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Mot by Mckensie, seconded Locdwick, passed 7-0 per staff recommendations.
Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Lodwick to approve the Administrative Reviews as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since January 20, 2004.
There were no BZA requests for comment.
D. General public comment.
Dennis Brown, Vice President of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance spoke concerning sidewalk dining downtown, especially in light of concerns that there were more proposals in the works. He stated that current guidelines were an attempt to have things both ways, with vehicular traffic and an outdoor bistro type atmosphere. The LPA has concerns that pedestrian flow is suffering, especially since the railings are in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In cosmopolitan cities, the perimeter line is delineated by potted shrubs and not a permanent railing. A more temporary barrier would help to solve the problem and the LPA would be interested in seeing the previous proposal.
Comm. Alstrom also said he would like to see the proposal as well. He also stated that outdoor seating areas should also contain a sill-cock and therefore could be easily washed. He would like to see a requirement for cleaning the outdoor dining areas.
Dennis Brown also mentioned that the LPA board is meeting Monday, February 21st to discuss two projects:
· Demolition permit for 15th and Haskell
· Deteriorated structure at 1120 Rhode Island
County owned house that the County is using for storage. The foundation on the addition is crumbling.
D. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
Staff:
Ms. Zollner that there have been changes at the state and local levels. Dick Pankrantz retired. Cindy Davis is the interim director. Martha Hagerdown-Kress resigned and will be doing consulting work. Christy Davis is the contact for now. The local planning department has made offers for two new positions, one for a current planner and one for a long range planner. Ms. Saker has resigned in order to pursue massage therapy, but will remain on in a limited capacity.
Comm. Alstrom wanted to know if any of the commissioners wanted to make any comments about the KU agreement. Staff stated that the previous HRA was involved, and that CHPB have worked with staff on a joint review. Staff hopes to formalize that joint review. Comm. Alstrom has concerns that the HRC decision is only advisory and not binding. Staff clarified that it is like an Admin review and that the HRC acts on behalf of the City Commission. They are an advisory commission to the City Commission. Comm. Lodwick stated that it was better now than it was in the past. Comm. Mckenzie thinks that the agreement is working and therefore no more refinement is needed, nor comment.
Chair Marvin made an official presentation to outgoing Comm. Dean and Comm. Lodwick in recognition of their service. Chair Marvin thanked them for their service and presented them each with certificates. She informed everyone that cake and lemonade would be served following the meeting in their honor.
ADJOURN – 8:52 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.