LAWRENCE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION

MEETING SUMMARY

CITY COMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 6 E. 6^TH STREET

June 16, 2005 – 7:00 P.M.

____________________________________________________________

Commissioners present: Marvin, Sizemore, Hickam, Veatch, McKenzie and Alstrom

Staff present:  Zollner, Miller and Saker

ITEM NO. 1   ACTION SUMMARY

One typographical error was noted in the May meeting summary.

Motioned by McKenzie seconded by Sizemore to approve the May 19, 2005 Action Summary as revised.

Motion carried 4-2 with Marvin and Hickam abstaining due to their absence from the May meeting.

ITEM NO. 2   COMMUNICATIONS

• There were no additional written communications for the Commission.
• Alstrom indicated he would abstain from the item regarding 1311 New Hampshire Street. (DR-05-32-05)
• The City’s Director of Legal Services, Dave Corliss, gave a presentation on the Kansas Open Meetings Act and how this Act relates to the Commission.  Main points of this presentation included:
• The intent of the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) is to ensure that the public’s business is conducted before the public.
• KOMA defines a meeting as the majority of a quorum, in any setting, discussing the business of that body.  In the case of the HRC, a majority of a quorum is 3 members.
• Public and media notice requirements must be fulfilled any time a meeting, according to the above definition, is held.
• Many times this Act is violated when the members of a given body do not believe they are actually holding a meeting.  This can include email and telephone conversations as well as face-to-face discussions.  Sending the initial comments by email is not the violation – this takes place when an interactive discussion follows.
• Executive sessions (meetings held outside the public purview) are allowed in certain instances (matters of litigation, labor relations, etc.).  The Legal Department does not feel this type of meeting is appropriate for the HRC.
• Mr. Corliss also spoke about ethics issues, including:
• It is appropriate for Commissioners to disclose ex parte communications (any conveyance of information regarding an issue that has not been supplied to the full Commission) to ensure that all Commissioners are making decisions based on the same information.
• Commissioners must guard against a perception of pre-judgment, that any member determined his or her vote prior to hearing the issue in the public forum.
• Commissioners should all submit a Statement of Substantial Interest, identifying properties in which he or she had a monetary or otherwise personal interest.  State law did not require Commissioners to abstain from matters involving these properties as long as the relationship was disclosed at the meeting, but abstention was encouraged by the Legal Department.
• All Commissioners had a duty to remain attentive during the proceedings.

ITEM NO. 3:        L-04-01-04:      1927 Learnard Avenue; Zinn-Burroughs House nomination to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Zollner said a property ownership notice was distributed to inform the area residents of this meeting and the City Commission’s upcoming meeting.

Staff noted that the Planning Commission was pleased to have received the item at their May meeting but chose not to comment.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

James Grauerholtz expressed appreciation for the Commission’s long-term work on this project.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Hickam explained he received a phone call from Chris Cunningham, a nearby resident, who said he would not be able to attend tonight’s meeting but he supported the project.

Dennis Brown spoke on behalf of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, saying the executive board strongly supported the resolution.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was clarified that two actions were needed for the nomination and the environs definition.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Hickam, seconded by McKenzie to adopt the resolution nominating the Zinn-Burroughs House to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places as presented by Staff and forward the nomination to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Hickam to approve the environs definition for the Zinn-Burroughs House as presented by Staff and forward the definition to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

ITEM NO. 4:        DR-05-30-05:   1333 New York Street          ; Demolition and New  Construction of Ancillary Structure; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Richard and Mary Jones, property owners of record.  The property is located in the environs of the South Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented elevation photographs of the main and ancillary structure.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mary Jones, property owner, said she had considered restoring the garage but several professionals had determined the building to be so structurally unsound that even bracing would not make the building safe.

Ms. Jones said she intended to construct the new garage 4’ larger and would relocate it slightly to meet current setbacks required by code.  She stated her intent to re-use the existing doors.  Ms. Jones said more research was needed regarding the new windows, but she did not intend to use metal windows.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Hickam stated his appreciation that the applicant was planning to replace the existing garage with something similar in size and massing, rather than attempting to fit a larger building on the lot.  He said the proposed garage appeared to be shielded by the primary structure and, as an environs project, he saw no harm to the district.

The Commission also appreciated the applicant’s intent to re-use the existing doors.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Hickam to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 1333 New York Street, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy and listed property or its environs.  Approval was subject to the following conditions:

1. The property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition and new construction begin;

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 provide a material list, complete with window details, as well as the orientation of the structure to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the release of the project for permitting.

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

ITEM NO. 5:        DR-05-31-05:   1219 New York Street          ; Demolition of Ancillary Structure; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by John Kennedy, property owner of record.  The property is located in the environs of the South Rhode Island Street Historic District, and the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented elevation photographs of the main and ancillary structure.

Ms. Zollner explained the ancillary structure had been cited for environmental blight.  A letter from Gleason Gregory regarding the possible repair of the building was included in the Commission’s packets.

Ms. Zollner said it was difficult for Staff to support a request for demolition over repair, but this building was in a state of significant disrepair and posed a public safety concern.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

There was no one present to speak on behalf of the applicant.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Hickam said the ancillary structure had been in poor condition when he was inside it several years ago.  He noted the variety of siding materials on the building and suggested that photo documentation would be valuable on that basis.

It was verified that the ancillary building was on the 1927 Sanborn Maps, along with a second ancillary building that was no longer on the property.  The Subject building was also on the 1954 overlay.

Staff responded to questioning that the applicant did not intend to replace the structure.

Alstrom said he would feel differently if this were a contributing structure, but as an environs concern he could support demolition because of safety concerns.

Hickam said it was always difficult to see a building of this age lost, particularly through neglect, which appeared to be the case here.

The commission expressed concern over public health, safety and welfare.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Veatch to approve the Certified Local Government review for demolition of the ancillary structure at 1219 New York Street based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy and listed property or its environs.  Approval was subject to the following conditions:

1. The property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition begins;

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. Plans for any new construction of the site are to be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission at that time.

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

ITEM NO. 6:        DR-05-32-05:   1311 New Hampshire Street; Foundation Replacement; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review.  Submitted by Harold Washington and Pam Gordon, property owners of record.  The property is listed as a contributing structure to the South Rhode Island Street Historic District National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the environs of the John N. Roberts House (1307 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

Alstrom abstaining.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff showed photographs of all elevations and foundation details.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Stan Greenwell, contractor, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He explained the intent to replace the failing foundation, which was settling in the center and allowing water into the home.

It was discussed that it was not uncommon in these cases (foundation replacements) that the house was raised or lowered unintentionally.  The Staff Report recommended conditioning that any height increase be restricted to less than 6” and Mr. Greenwell said this was the applicants’ intent.

Mr. Greenwell said the applicants had no objection to the proposed requirements to keep window wells on the side and rear of the structure and to provide landscape screening.  He said the applicant proposed to apply a stucco veneer to the foundation but would be willing to use stone or faux stone if the Commission would prefer.

Mr. Greenwell provided additional drawings showing the applicants’ intent to extend the foundation underneath the porch but leaving the wood porch otherwise in its existing state.  Ms. Zollner said Staff’s main concern with this additional change would be the replacement veneer, because that was a character-defining element.  Mr. Greenwell said the applicant would be willing to apply a brick veneer to maintain the porch’s current appearance, possibly re-using the existing bricks if possible.

Mr. Greenwell verified construction details of the porch slab and said the basement would have 9’ ceilings.  There was discussion about lowering the basement ceiling if needed to keep the height increase of the entire structure under 6”.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Hickam said he would have no objection to the project as long as the height increase restrictions could be followed.  Mr. Greenwell said he had no reason to expect this would not be possible.

There was discussion about the location and design of the existing and proposed window wells.

There was also discussion about appropriate foundation and veneer materials, noting that limestone would be historically accurate for a home of this age, but the structure currently had a stone and stucco foundation.

Alstrom said he intended to abstain because he had worked with Mr. Greenwell on other projects.  However, he wished to comment that the structure was contributing but changes had already been made to its original appearance.  He said the building height was his most significant concern and noted that approximately 21” of foundation were currently exposed but screened with landscaping.

There was extensive discussion with Mr. Greenwell about waterproofing mechanisms and construction designs.

The Commission discussed revising Staff’s condition about investigating ways to limit height increase of the structure to state that any height increase was limited to 6”.

It was noted that Staff’s recommended conditions did not address the porch veneer.  The Commission directed Staff to include that element in Staff’s review of the final construction documents.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Marvin to approve the Certified Local Government Review and the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1311 New Hampshire 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 revised conditions:

1. The new foundation will not increase the overall height of the structure by more than six (6) inches;

2. Window wells will not be placed on the eastern (front) elevation;

3. Window wells and the light well will be landscaped to minimize their impact on the historic structure and district;

4. The applicant provide complete construction documents, including window well locations and sizes, with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;

5. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work; and

6. The property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before demolition and new construction begin.

          Motion carried 5-0-1, with Alstrom abstaining.

ITEM NO. 7:        DR-05-37-05:    735 Massachusetts; Storefront Rehabilitation; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Mark Willingham 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 in the environs of the House Building (729-731 Massachusetts), and Miller’s Hall (723-725 Massachusetts) Lawrence Register of Historic Places.  The property is also located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff showed photographs of property’s front elevation along Massachusetts Street and entryway detail.  It was noted that this project involved the second half of the overall storefront and proposed to make this half match the newly remodeled adjacent half at 733 Massachusetts.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mark Willingham, property owner, further explained that they had recently acquired the subject property and intended to treat it as a “Phase 2”, remodeling it to match the existing storefront at 733 Massachusetts.  He said the existing awning at 735 Massachusetts would be removed to reveal the full original transom. 

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was discussed that, although the current wood appearance was pleasing, the applicant would have to paint the wood on both 733 & 735 Massachusetts to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.  Ms. Zollner explained that modern staining and preservation techniques were not available in this building’s era and paint was typically used as the method of protecting woodwork from the elements.  Returning the wood to its original (painted) state was required to qualify for tax credits.

Alstrom said he was not entirely pleased about the alignment of the existing (original) transoms but recognized that revising this element would require changing the recessed entryway at 735 Massachusetts.  He said he would not pursue this possibility because this was a contributing structure but not a landmark.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Hickam to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guidelines Review for the project at 735 Massachusetts, based on a determination that the project will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs.  Approval was based on 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 wood elements of the storefront be painted;

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 property owner will allow staff access to the exterior and interior of the property to photo document the project before construction begins.

Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

ITEM NO. 8:        DR-05-34-05: 936 Massachusetts Street; Exterior Remodel; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review.  Submitted by Janet Smalter 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 environs of the Hanna Building (933 Massachusetts), Lawrence Register of Historic Places and is located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District. Proposed project changes have moved this item from administrative review to full commission review.

STAFF PRESENATION

Staff showed the front (street) and rear (alley) elevations of the subject property.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Janet Smalter, Smalter & Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying Staff had worked with her to try to keep this as an administrative review item.  However, it was determined that it was necessary for the full Commission to review the changes required to meet emergency egress and building code standards. She presented revised drawings to the commissioners at the meeting.

Ms. Smalter explained that egress standards required that the front door must open outward, but this would encroach into the public right-of-way.  The applicant therefore proposed replacing the entire door system as described in the Staff Report, including an awning and mosaic floor tile.

Changes in the rear of the property included replacing the existing wood doors that did not meet current current code, and deteriorated windows.  Ms. Smalter said the new aluminum rear windows would match the existing pattern.  She responded to questioning that 4 of the existing windows were metal and 3 were wood in poor condition.

Ms. Smalter noted that the window wells to the basement were already gone and the applicant was considering repairing them with glass block.

No changes were proposed to the upper floor rear windows.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION 

It was established that the new door would not be at an angle like the existing door but would be recessed 5’ and parallel to the sidewalk.

Alstrom commented on the move away from historic materials on this contributing structure.  He acknowledged that the existing entryway and the majority of the rear windows were aluminum, but he would like to see more wood materials used.  Ms. Smalter noted that the property across the street (the Ecke Building) had been allowed to use an extensive amount of glazing and this applicant would question a strict requirement for wood materials.

Staff noted that it had been difficult to find historic photographs of the property.  Ms. Zollner responded to questioning that the proposed mosaic tile entry floor was not common in Lawrence but was not atypical for commercial buildings of the era.

There was discussion about sending the project to the ARC for final design review and suggested that this would not be necessary if the Commission agreed that the design presented today was acceptable.  It was verified that the Commission did agree on the proposed design and discussed that Staff could be responsible for final review of construction materials. 

It was clarified that the applicant did not intend to apply for State tax credits at this time and understood what revisions would be needed to the current proposal of tax credits were proposed at a later date.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Hickam, seconded by McKenzie to approve all three levels of review for the project, subject to the following conditions: 

1. The applicant meet with the Architectural Review Committee to finalize the new storefront door design;
2. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations and window and door specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
3. The signage for the east elevation be redesigned and submitted to the HRA before the release of a sign permit;
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 property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before construction begins.

Motioned by Sizemore, seconded by Alstrom to amend the motion on the floor to eliminate condition 1 for ARC review.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was noted that Staff had not reviewed the design proposal and would need to do so.

Alstrom said the Commission needed to set aside time at some point to discuss appropriate construction materials for contributing structures.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to remove the condition for ARC Review.

          Motion carried 5-1, with McKenzie opposed.

Amended motion on the floor was to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certified Local Government Review and the Downtown Design Guideline Review for the project at 936 Massachusetts Street, 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. The applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations and window and door specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. The signage for the east elevation be redesigned and submitted to the HRA before the release of a sign permit;
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 property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project before construction begins.

Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

1. REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMITS

There were no demolition permits for review.

2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

There were no ARC reviews for Commission discussion.

Administrative Reviews:

DR-05-28-05:          1901 Louisiana Street; HVAC Improvements; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Tom Bracciano for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of the Dudley Wiggins Residence (840 W. 21st), Kansas Register of Historic Places.

DR-05-29-05:            643 Massachusetts; Sign; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by David Ash 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.

DR-05-33-05:          1480 Hoch Auditoria Drive; Parking Lot Expansion; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Design and Construction Management, The University of Kansas.  The property is located in the environs of the Chi Omega Sorority House (1345 W. Campus Road), Kansas Register of Historic Places.

DR-05-35-05:          201-209 W. 8th Street; Sidewalk Modifications; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Paul Werner Architects 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.

DR-05-36-05: 644 New Hampshire Street; Parking Lot Lighting; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Ed Ciambrone for the property owner of record. The property is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, the North Rhode Island Street Historic District, The United States Post Office (645 New Hampshire), the Eldridge Hotel (701 Massachusetts), National Register of Historic Places and the Consolidated Barbwire Building (546 New Hampshire), Kansas Register of Historic Places. The property is located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.

DR-05-38-05:          708 Mississippi Street; Exterior Opening Modification; Certified Local Government Review.  Submitted by Clovis Construction for the property owner of record.  The property is located in the environs of the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.

Motioned by McKenzie, seconded by Hickam to approve all Administrative Reviews as presented.

     Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

3. COMMENT ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

There were no BZA issues for Commission comment.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Mo members of the public came forward with additional comments.

5. MISCELLANOUS MATTERS FROM STAFF AND COMMISSION

It was discussed that the City Commission had deferred action on the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines, directing Staff to schedule another meeting with various individuals and groups that had concerns about the guidelines. 

Staff said the new Commissioner manuals were close to completion.  Commissioners were asked to review the provided table of contents and inform Staff of other materials they would like to see included in the manuals.

ADJOURN - 8:55 p.m.

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.