HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION
Action Summary
April 21, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present: Hickam, Sizemore, McKenzie, Alstrom, Marvin, Antle, Veatch and Student Comm. Nightingale
Staff present: Zollner, Miller and Saker
____________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: Action summary
Several typographical errors were noted.
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Veatch to approve the March action summary as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-2, with Alstrom and McKenzie abstaining due to their absence from the March meeting.
ITEM NO. 2: CorrespondEnce, ABSTENTIONS, DEFERRALS
ITEM NO. 3: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-2005
McKenzie nominated Hickam as Chair. Sizemore seconded the nomination. Motion to elect Hickam as the 2005-2006 Chair carried unanimously, 7-0.
Hickam nominated Sizemore as Vice-Chair. Veatch seconded the nomination. Motion to elect Sizemore as Vice-Chair carried unanimously, 7-0.
McKenzie volunteered for the position of Campus Liaison. Motioned by Marvin, seconded by Sizemore to accept McKenzie as the 2005-2006 Campus Liaison. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Alstrom and Sizemore volunteered for positions on the Architectural Review Committee. Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Hickam to accept Alstrom and Sizemore as the 2005-2006 ARC. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-03-16-05: 1136 Mississippi Street; New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and the Jane A. Snow Residence (706 W. 12th), National and Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff presented photographs of the subject property, a vacant lot proposed for construction of a new multi-residence structure. Pictures were shown of the view to and from the subject lot in all directions, including the historic district area and environs properties.
Staff noted the existing stairs on the subject property. These remained from the original structure, which was demolished by a previous property owner.
Staff showed elevation drawings of the proposed structure.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the applicant anticipated concerns with the proposed garage for the new construction. He said the proposal had been before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) two times to resolve parking issues related to the proposal. The original request had been for a reduction in required parking to 0 spaces. The BZA had denied this request, as well as a follow-up request to reduce the parking requirement to five spaces. With these denials, the applicant was directed to redesign the project to provide the full number of required parking spaces.
Mr. Werner said the design before the Commission tonight met the BZA’s direction, providing eight off-street parking spaces, and met the Zoning Ordinance in all other aspects, to his knowledge. However, this was accomplished by using access to Mississippi Street, a design the applicant found undesirable because of slope issues. Mr. Werner suggested the Commission would also find this design problematic because of the visual impact on the historic district and the environs of the proposed garage in the front of the subject lot.
The applicant asked for the Commission’s support in returning to the BZA with a revised proposal, requesting to remove the front garages and using access to Indiana Street.
Mr. Werner addressed the conditions proposed by staff, asking if condition 2 was met by the drawings presented tonight. He also asked if conditions 3 & 4 were appropriate. Condition 3 dealt with an issue that was not typically within HRC consideration, and the site plan required by condition 4 might not be required based on future determinations.
Mr. Werner commented this was a “brutal” site to develop because of slope, access, and other issues. Developing the property with fewer bedrooms (resulting in a lower parking requirement) would not be cost effective.
Mr. Werner said it was difficult to believe that any kind of development on this site would have a more significant impact on the environs than was already made by the recent Berkley Flats development in the area. However, the applicant would like to reduce the impact of his construction by avoiding access onto Mississippi Street.
It was established the applicant would have to make another variance request to the BZA to achieve his most recent design. A front yard setback reduction, which was not uncommon in the Oread Neighborhood, would allow for all the parking to be provided in the rear of the structure with access to Indiana Street.
Staff was asked to comment on the applicability of conditions 3 & 4. Ms. Zollner explained that condition 3 related to staff’s need to understand how the recorded easements would affect greenspace on the lot. Regarding condition 4, discussions with the Planning Director determined that as proposed the project would be considered a complex because of the shared on-site laundry facility and access shared with the property to the south. A complex will require a site plan
It was discussed that the applicant also owned the adjacent property to the south, which was developed residentially with no off-street parking provided. Mr. Werner said using the subject property to provide parking for the southern lot was impractical. It would require site planning of both lots and slope made the subject land difficult to use just for parking. He commented the applicant tried to buy another adjacent lot, but this resulted in a project over ½ acre in size, which carried additional costly study requirements.
It was established that the possible front yard setback reduction would place the structure approximately 15’ from the sidewalk. It was suggested this was typical of the tiered setback effect running through this section of the Oread Neighborhood.
Mr. Werner closed his comments by noting the subject property was zoned RD, which carried a parking requirement of one space per bedroom. Other residential zoning districts would require less parking for the same proposal, but rezoning a single lot was unlikely to be approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Janet Gerstner explained she recently moved from the Oread Neighborhood but had been a long-time resident of the area. She said she understood the applicant to say this property was not important to the environs, and she disagreed. The subject property sat at the edge of the district, abutting the listed property, and was critical to the character of the environs.
Ms. Gerstner said the design was attractive, but she felt the density of the project was still fairly high and had concerns about parking. She said she agreed with comments from the BZA that the applicant should consider scaling back the proposal to fewer bedrooms, which would require fewer parking spaces.
Ms. Gerstner understood this was a difficult site to develop, but said those difficulties were readily apparent to the property owner before he chose to buy the lot. The buyer should have a realistic expectation of how the lot could be developed and the purchase price should have reflected the lot’s limitations. She said it was not the role of staff or the review bodies to make this purchase cost effective.
Ms. Gerstner stated her support of placing parking on the rear of the lot, but said she did not understand how setbacks would impact this change.
Carol von Tersch, Hancock District resident, expressed concerns that a new curb cut on Mississippi Street would disrupt traffic and pedestrian patterns in the district. She commented on the number of on-street parking spaces that would be lost on Mississippi Street with the new curb cut, saying any parking loss was significant in the Oread area.
Ms. Von Tersch noted that the applicant and staff had not found any documentation about when the original structure was removed from the subject lot. It was clarified that the home was removed prior to the applicant’s purchase of the lot.
Ms. Von Tersch suggested using the subject property to provide parking for the two adjacent lots, which were owned by the applicant, and were developed with no off-street parking at all. She felt this would be an appropriate use of the property and “a wonderful contribution to the neighborhood.”
CLOSING COMMMENTS - APPLICANT
Mr. Werner noted that if an easement was denied to Indiana Street, access would be to Mississippi Street no matter how the lot was developed. He pointed out the lot was legally platted with right-of-way to Mississippi Street, but it would be better for all concerned if an alternative access could be agreed upon.
Mr. Werner commented the City recently approved the relocation of an existing home to a lot in Oread that would have been ideal for a parking area, but the review bodies were of the opinion that saving the structure was more important. He said grade and existing retaining walls made the subject property a poor choice for a parking lot.
It was clarified the applicant had not yet pursued a setback variance with the BZA. Mr. Werner said parking variances had been requested because this kind of variance was frequently approved, provided the applicant could show the project would improve the existing situation. He hoped input from the HRC would help in a future BZA request for the setback variance.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Alstrom said he supported staff’s recommendations 1-4, based on the reasoning provided in staff’s presentation. He felt the building style fit the neighborhood, but opposed the garage door entrances and driveway as proposed on Mississippi Street.
It was noted the size of the proposed structure was increased with amenities that may not be necessary to the project.
There was discussion about what action to take to communicate the Commission did not support the design with access onto Mississippi Street, but still leave options open for the applicant to return to the BZA.
Ms. Zollner suggested approving the project, subject to ARC review of the removal of the garages and the curb cut on Mississippi Street, as well as the redesign of the lot to allow rear parking. It was discussed this would involve the redesign of an entire façade, which went beyond the usual range of ARC review. It was noted the conditions as written involved returning to the Historic Resources Administrator with changes to the current design. Sizemore said he would be comfortable with these issues coming to the ARC.
Mr. Werner asked if condition 4 could be revised to reflect the fact that a site plan review might not be required.
It was discussed whether the project would return to the full Commission to consider building placement and its visual impact on the environs if the BZA approved a setback variance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Sizemore to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1136 Mississippi Street, based on a determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-03-17-05: 800-804 New Hampshire Street; Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Bo March, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District and the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff explained the subject property was located in the environs of multiple historic districts and showed all elevations and the views along those elevations. Staff also presented the proposed site plan and detail views of the proposed sidewalk dining equipment and railing.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bo March, contractor, spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated agreement with all of staff’s recommended conditions, except condition 3 about phasing. He explained the applicant wanted to remove the loading docks on the south portion of the property as part of Phase 1. However, he wanted to delay redevelopment of the dock area until a tenant was found for the northern section of the building, since the use would dictate the appropriate storefront. The applicant proposed removing the overhead door and storefront and covering them with painted plywood temporarily until a tenant was in place.
The applicant was asked to address the metal spire proposed on the corner of the building. Mr. March said the building was nondescript and not a graceful contribution to the intersection. The applicant felt the spire gave a “needed vertical element to make the corner pivotal…to hold its own among taller structures.”
The applicant responded to questions about outdoor lighting, explaining the proposal for lighting directly on the proposed canopy. He understood the Commission’s concern about light pollution and said light escaping from the site was not accomplishing its intent and would be redesigned.
It was verified that staff’s recommended conditions dealt with inconsistencies in the provided drawings.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Alstrom said the conditions should clarify whether the sidewalk dimension was measured from the tree well or the tree itself.
It was established the current code required 6’ sidewalks in all cases, but the proposed new guidelines allowed more narrow sidewalks on side streets. Alstrom spoke about the possible obstruction of fire egress areas with sidewalk dining, especially for high-occupancy buildings with larger egress requirements.
It was established the applicant had no way to predict how long the temporary measures proposed would be in place over the northern storefront. Ms. Zollner stated staff would never support the use of painted plywood as a window treatment, even as a temporary measure. There was discussion about placing a time limit on the temporary measures, but this created an enforcement issue. It was noted that the Commission did not typically use time limits.
It was clarified the applicant wanted to remove the overhead door and entry door as part of phase 1 because he would like to pour the concrete access ramp and stairs as part of this site plan. Pouring the concrete without moving the doors created other complications. Mr. March said the notes indicating these improvements were planned for Phase 2 were incorrect.
Staff pointed out this project would also go through the BZA and the City Commission.
McKenzie asked about the variance request for a reduction in required parking from 100 to 7 spaces. Staff explained the current C-4A zoning of the property made this request necessary for the proposed restaurant use. If the new code was in place, this exercise would have been moot.
Staff was asked which option was preferable, to make all storefront improvements with Phase 1, or to wait to do all the improvements at once. Ms. Zollner said staff understood the reason for the applicant’s request to use temporary measures. She stated again staff’ could not support the use of painted plywood to cover openings, especially downtown, under any circumstances.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Sizemore, seconded by McKenzie to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 800-804 New Hampshire, based on a determination the project will 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. The sidewalk dining area shall be designed according to the following:
a. Maintain a minimum 6’ width of unobstructed sidewalk and measured from the proposed tree well, whichever is closest to the building;
b. The proposed railing shall not be attached to the building;
c. The height of the railing shall not be higher than thirty-six inches (36");
d. Advertising shall not be permitted in the sidewalk dining area except for the name of the establishment on chairs or tables as approved by the City;
e. This recommendation is given with the understanding that the City Commission must approve the associated site plan and sidewalk dining license. Approval of this request by staff or the HRC does not guarantee the City Commission will approve the associated site plan or sidewalk dining license.
3. The applicant shall not remove the entry door and overhead door on the south elevation until Phase 2 when replacement of these elements occurs;
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 staff access to the property to photo document the project before construction begins.
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: DR-03-18-05: 1443 Alumni Place; Window Replacement; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Design and Construction Management, The University of Kansas. The property is located in the environs of the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee), National Register of Historic Places.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed all elevations of the environs property, including the ‘to and from’ view between the subject property and the listed property. Staff showed detail of the proposed windows.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jim Long of the Campus Historic Preservation Board (CHPB) said the Board approved the project as presented on April 4th and the minutes of that meeting were provided for the Commission’s information.
Jim Modig, Design and Construction Management, said the existing windows were original to the structure but required frequent repair. The Housing Department was short of repair funds and the replacement windows were proposed to reduce repair costs and increase efficiency.
The proposed windows were aluminum with a thermal pane for insulation. They were white and had divided lights to match the existing windows. Mr. Modig explained the window air conditioning units would have to remain “for a while longer” and modifications would have to be made to accommodate those units in the existing openings. Sashes would be returned to normal window function when the AC units were no longer needed.
Alstrom said this situation was unusual in that the aluminum frames would be better suited to accommodate the AC units. He said metal windows could have been used in the original structure, considering the age of the building, even though they were not. He felt the white color dealt with the visual impact of the proposed changes, which was the most important factor.
Mr. Modig explained that the Housing Department looked at lifecycle costs as part of repair/replacement review. This included maintenance frequency and energy efficiency.
It was discussed that staff recommended the use of wood windows, and Ms. Zollner said staff would almost never recommend the use of any material besides wood to replace wood. She also said cost estimates were a typical request to assist in making a determination that deterioration had reached a point that it would be prudent to allow replacement.
It was established the question of material was the reason this item was subject to full Commission review. Staff was unable to support aluminum windows in place of wood, but said the SHPO has allowed replacement as requested in the environs.
It was verified the subject property was not listed, but was visible from a listed property.
Mr. Long said the campus had no problem providing cost estimates immediately and window details when available.
There was discussion about putting the divided lights on the exterior of the windows, rather than interior to the pane.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The intent of condition 1 was clarified and Ms. Zollner explained how this condition is met. Staff reviews the information provided by the applicant and releases the project if the HRA agrees replacement is reasonable based on the information provided by the applicant. If the HRA does not agree, the item comes back to the full Commission.
Mr. Modig said the University understood the way this process worked, but asked if lifecycle costs could be included in the cost estimates and would be considered in Staff’s review.
It was verified that the University is aware of their eligibility for tax credit funding.
Alstrom said the thickness of the glass might support the use of exterior dividing lights instead of internal lighting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by McKenzie seconded by Antle to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1443 Alumni Place, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide estimates to the Historic Resources Administrator as to the deterioration of the current wood windows as well as cost estimates for repair versus replacement;
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 property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before construction begins.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-03-19-05: 1301 Jayhawk Boulevard; New Construction;Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Design and Construction Management, The University of Kansas. The property is located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District, the Jane A. Snow Residence (706 W. 12th), Spooner Hall (1340 Jayhawk Boulevard), Lippincott Hall (1410 Jayhawk Boulevard), and Dyche Hall (1335-1345 Jayhawk Boulevard), National Register of Historic Places.
Item 7 was deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 8: DR-03-20-05: 808 E. 28th Street; New Construction; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Allen Belot, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Haskell Institute (Cemetery, 2300 Barker), National Historic Landmark.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed the elevations of the subject property, noting its location in the environs and presenting detail views of the existing building. Staff also showed elevation drawings of the proposed new structure.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, clarifying the project involved the relocation of the existing building, not the construction of a new building. This meant the elevations would be identical.
Mr. Belot described the existing thick, mature vegetation between the proposed new location of the building and the adjacent listed property (cemetery). He showed how the required setbacks kept construction on the subject lot from moving any closer to the listed cemetery. These factors meant the proposed building placement would be invisible from the cemetery.
Mr. Belot asked if the construction drawings already provided were adequate to meet condition 1. It was discussed that the condition could be revised to require HRA review instead of ARC.
Lighting was discussed with the applicant, establishing that the only exterior lighting would be similar to a porch light and would be blocked from view (from the cemetery) by existing vegetation. The existing trees were not shown on the site plan because it was not determined whether they were on campus property or the applicant’s lot.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that no comments had been received from Haskell University.
It was again discussed that there was no line of sight from the proposed building location to the listed property, even though a small portion of the parking area would be within the environs.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by McKenzie, to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 808 E. 28th Street, based on a determination that the project 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 to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. The applicant maintain the existing trees and vegetation located along the north and west portion of the property to provide a significant visual screen from the proposed site to the National Historic Landmark site;
3. 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.
DR-03-15-05: 1423 Ohio Street; Foundation Repair & Window Remodel; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by David F. Gage, for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the John Palmer and Margaret Usher House (1425 Tennessee), and Spooner Hall (1335-1345 Jayhawk Boulevard), National Register of Historic Places.
The Commission agreed to staff’s request to move this item from the Administrative Review section to full Commission review.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff showed the elevations of the subject property, which was located within the environs of two listed properties. The applicant requested to replace the existing wood ground-level windows, and staff brought the issue to the full Commission because the HRA could not approve the applicant’s request to use a material other than wood.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David Gage spoke on behalf of the property owner, stating reasons the windows should be replaced:
The applicant proposed changing from double-hung to casement windows that would crank open for easy ventilation and emergency egress. He said he would be willing to use casement windows on one elevation and double-hung on the other, but asked to use aluminum or vinyl because custom-fit wood windows would be very expensive.
The applicant expressed willingness to put lights above the windows to match the existing lights, although he envisioned bronze lighting fixtures to match the building’s exterior detail.
Mr. Gage said the applicant would also be willing to use bricks above the window wells to match the existing appearance, although the existing bricks were in a state of deterioration and could probably not be reused.
Staff was asked to suggest conditions to apply to a possible approval. Ms. Zollner said staff would recommend requiring window specs, but would leave the decision about wood vs. non-wood material for the Commission to decide. It was again noted the SHPO has allowed aluminum materials in the environs, and the windows in this case were low on the line of sight.
The applicant asked if the brochure provided to staff would fulfill the requirement for window specs.
It was noted the majority of work would be done on the southern elevation, but some would be done on the eastern elevation, which had a direct line of sight to the listed property. It was recognized that the line of sight from the eastern elevation was limited because of the low level of the windows. It was verified that all windows proposed for replacement were lower level.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Janet Gerstner asked if the two adjacent buildings were constructed at the same time as the subject property. It was established this was not the case. She asked if this building was considered to have a higher contribution to the environs because it was older.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified the upstairs windows were large enough to meet egress requirements, so it was unlikely they would ever be proposed for replacement.
It was commented that exterior details should be kept as close to the original as possible.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hickam, seconded by McKenzie, to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1423 Ohio, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property or its environs. Approval was subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Aluminum casement windows may be permitted, provided the applicant provide cost estimates comparing repair, replacement in kind and replacement with alternative materials;
2. The applicant provide window specifications to 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.
5 minute recess, reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9: DISCUSSION OF SIDEWALK DINING GUIDELINES
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner explained the Commission was asked to review the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines prepared in 1995 to see if the language developed at that time was still appropriate. Once the Commission completed their review, the guidelines would be forwarded to the City Commission for their consideration as a new policy document regulating the placement and design of sidewalk dining areas.
PUBLIC COMMENT
It was established during the public comment section that none of the speakers had seen the proposed guidelines.
Jerry Neverve, owner of the Red Lyon Tavern on Massachusetts Street, said he had only a few concerns with the proposed guidelines. His primary concerns centered on the required removal of the dining area furnishings and barriers on a daily basis, particularly on portability and easy storage if the railings were also required to be made of wrought iron. Mr. Neverve noted the times when the railings would have to be brought inside coincided with times when pedestrian traffic would be lightest.
Mr. Neverve asked about the 36” maximum height requirement, explaining a 43” high railing was more suitable to his particular business. He suggested a height range between 36” – 45”, pointing out there were already railings taller than 36” in the downtown area.
Mr. Neverve said he would like to have umbrellas allowed in the sidewalk dining areas, because they were an inexpensive way to provide shade. It was suggested that a height restriction could be applied to the umbrellas to minimize safety concerns. It was discussed that umbrellas blocked visual access to the storefront. Mr. Neverve said awnings blocked this access more than umbrellas.
Dennis Brown, Vice-President of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, referenced the statement forwarded to the Commission previously. He speculated that, had the HRC been considering cutting the vehicular trafficway on Massachusetts Street in half, there would be outraged public opinion. Yet, because of sidewalk dining areas, the pedestrian walkways were being slowly cut in half piece by piece.
The LPA was concerned that barriers would be in place, encroaching into the pedestrian walkway, even at times and in weather conditions when the dining area was not in use. For this reason, the LPA supported temporary barriers that would be removed nightly. Mr. Brown said he appreciated the previous speaker’s comment that the railings, etc. would be removed at times when pedestrian traffic was lightest.
The LPA discussed temporary railing options, recognizing the trip hazard posed by corners and fittings left in the sidewalk when the barriers were removed. It was questioned whether railings were actually needed, and the LPA asked the Commission to consider the use of potted shrubs to delineate the dining area.
Mr. Brown said it was stated at the March HRC meeting that there were 21 sidewalk dining areas in place today, and new applications were coming in all the time. The existing dining areas were all permanent installations, and it was suggested that “the horse was out of the barn.” The Alliance hoped that getting guidelines in place would reduce the impact of future dining areas. It was also suggested that existing dining areas could be required to meet the new guidelines when the business changes ownership.
Dayna Carlton said she was an enthusiastic supporter of sidewalk dining. She felt these areas added charm to the City and that it was not disadvantageous for diners and pedestrians to mix.
Ms. Carlton said her experience with closing sections of the main street to vehicular traffic was not positive and she would recommend against making such changes here. Regarding temporary barriers, she said having a clearly defined line was better, especially when alcohol service was involved.
Ms. Carlton said that intermittent interruptions in the pedestrian pathway were a positive thing, making the pedestrian more aware of his surroundings as he wove through the dining areas and other encroachments.
Ms. Carlton said she used sidewalk dining areas in all times of the year and found them to be a positive contribution to vibrant city life.
It was established that the State required a solid physical barrier surrounding alcoholic beverage service areas.
Janet Gerstner said her discussions with people advocating the potted plant or rope and ribbon approach to anchoring the corners of dining areas led her to believe these methods were more complicated than wrought iron. She suggested the Commission explore both options or possibly consider allowing a combination of methods.
Betty Alderson said she did not dislike outdoor dining, but she was not enthusiastic about having half the sidewalk blocked. She was concerned that many out-of-towners would stop visiting Lawrence to shop the Downtown area because of the combined nuisance of eating, drinking and smoking on the sidewalk.
Ms. Alderson spoke against allowing umbrellas in the sidewalk dining areas, saying they posed hazards in the wind and if they were placed high enough to reduce this hazard, they would not provide much shade.
Ms. Alderson was also concerned about leaving the dining areas in place during the winter months when they would frequently go unused but would still block the pedestrian pathway. She felt that some balance must be struck between promoting a festive air and providing an adequate public sidewalk.
Ms. Alderson closed by saying that taking the sidewalk away from pedestrians would negatively impact non-eating establishments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that the Commission was asked to act on the guidelines and forward them to the City Commission with a recommendation from tonight’s meeting. This was primarily because the City Commission (at the request of the HRC) placed a moratorium on sidewalk dining licenses that would expire on May 12th.
Several Commissioners were concerned that more time was needed to consider and possibly revise the document to address the concerns of the speakers and numerous other comments that had been received. It was also noted that revising the document without comprehensive consideration may make the guidelines internally contradictive.
The Commission discussed forming a small committee to review the guidelines and bring a recommendation back to the full group. The majority of the Commission was of the opinion these issues should be dealt with by the full body.
It was suggested the Commission ‘run through’ the guidelines and eliminate sections they believed needed no additional consideration, leaving a list of items for continued discussion. They could then state a revised date by which a recommendation could be given to the City Commission. The Commission agreed to this suggestion and staff compiled a list of “remaining concerns” to be discussed at a later date.
It was verified that a quorum would be available at 6:30 p.m. on May 4th and staff agreed to locate a meeting room and advertise the meeting to discuss the list of remaining issues.
McKenzie left at 10:00 p.m.
Specific issues included:
ITEM NO. 10: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. Review of any demolition permit applications received since the March 17, 2005 regular meeting.
820 Ohio Street
Ms. Zollner explained the demolition permit had not yet been submitted for this property, but was anticipated following a fire that demolished the majority of the structure. She said staff documented the remains of the building as much as possible.
It was noted the Fire Department might waive the usual 30-day waiting period for this structure in consideration of the public safety.
It was established the existing outbuilding was not damaged in the fire and would not be covered by the demolition permit.
B. Architectural Review Committee and Administrative Reviews since the March 17, 2005 regular meeting.
There were no ARC reviews to consider.
Administrative Reviews
DR-03-14-05: 13 E. 8th Street; Sign; Certified Local Government Review. Submitted by Luminous Neon, Inc. for the property owner of record. The property is listed as 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. This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
There were no Administrative Reviews to consider.
C. Provide comment on variance (BZA) requests received since March 17, 2005.
The Commission added no comment beyond that provided when discussing DR-03-17-05 earlier in the meeting.
D. General public comment.
There was no additional public comment.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members:
· Ms. Zollner asked for verification of which Commissioners wanted to attend the State Historic Preservation Conference conference on May 5-7, 2005. She noted this would fulfill the Commissioner’s continuing education requirement.
· Director of Legal Services, David Corliss, indicated his willingness to attend a future meeting to lead a brief discussion about the Kansas Open Meetings Act. It was clarified there was no concern that any member of the Commission had violated the regulations, but it was considered prudent to discuss email and ex parte communications in regards to the OMA.
ADJOURN – 10:25 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.