historic resources Commission

Agenda MEETING – SEPTEMBER 21, 2006, 7:00 pm

ACTION SUMMARY DRAFT

_______________________________________________________________________

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

Staff present:  Zollner

_______________________________________________________________________

 

ITEM NO. 1:  ACTION SUMMARY

The Commission agreed to defer consideration of the August 17, 2006 Action Summary for one month.

 

ITEM NO. 2:  COMMUNICATIONS

  • Draft letter regarding the Commission’s concerns about the 8th Street Taproom.  The Commission agreed to discuss this letter at the end of the meeting.
  • Materials list submitted for Item 8 after packet delivery
  • Information on a requested demolition permit to be discussed at the end of the meeting.
  • Comm. Meyer said her sister-in-law was professionally involved with the project in Item 3, but she they did not discuss the issue and she did not intend to abstain from the Item.

 

ITEM NO. 3:  DR-03-33-06         200 W. 9th Street; Addition; Certified Local Government Review.  The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.  Submitted by the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Zollner noted that the subject property was listed on the Nation Register and was part of the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.  The project was deferred at the August meeting to allow the applicant to explore options that would convey design elements from the original structure.

 

APPLICANT PRESENATION

David Dunfield spoke on behalf of the City as the applicant.  He showed some of the design options that were developed in response to comments from the Commission and the Lawrence Preservation Alliance (LPA) about using brick detailing and window placement to reinforce the strong horizontal line of the original Carnegie Library building.

 

Mr. Dunfield said the design team felt the alternate designs made little improvement.  They proposed keeping a simple brick wall for the west façade but did not have strong feelings one way or the other about this element. However, the team felt that designs developed to carry out the horizontal line of the original building were visually detrimental to the character and composition of the overall building and they strongly opposed using them.

 

 

Mr. Dunfield said the team had met with staff and the SHPO and received what they felt was a positive review of the proposal presented tonight.  He said the message he took from that meeting was that the SHPO supported moving forward with the project.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dennis Brown spoke on behalf of LPA, expressing their disagreement with the applicant about the importance of referencing the horizontal line of the original building.  He described some of the professional sources LPA had met with regarding the project and explained the consensus was that this plan was an improvement over the original drawings, but still needed more work.  Specifically, the LPA continued their strong support for a design that carried out the window arrangements and horizontal lines, specifically in the now-blank wall of the utilitarian space

 

Mr. Brown said the LPA understood that the Commission was charged with determining whether or not the proposal would damage or destroy the environs.  LPA agreed that the proposed design clearly did not have any significant negative impact, but they had only “lukewarm support” for the project in its current design.  LPA asked the Commission to encourage the applicant to explore options that would do even more to enhance the environs.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed their charge of determining whether the project would negatively impact the listed property.  There was general agreement that this was not the case, and the current proposal was a significant improvement over the original drawings.

 

Commissioner Sizemore said he felt this was the right size and location for the addition and that the detailing currently proposed was appropriate in this setting.  He suggested that more blatant detailing would visually detract from the main building.

 

Commissioner Alstrom said he also supported the current detailing design, which gave the new addition its own identity instead of attempting to be a “neo-Carnegie.”

 

Commissioner Hickam said he struggled with the concept of referencing an original building through an addition.  He agreed with other Commissioners that the current proposal had an appropriate amount of visual reference while maintaining its distinctiveness as a new construction.

 

Mr. Dunfield responded to questioning that the masonry fence around the mechanical area and the dumpster was not yet designed, waiting for the outcome of the Commission’s review.  He said the height of the fence would likely approximate that of the lower stone force on the building, as long as it could provide adequate air circulation.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Hickam, seconded by Sizemore to approve the Certified Local Government Review for the project at 200 W. 9th 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 conditions:

 

1.      Complete construction documents with material notations, window details and trim details to be approved by the Architectural Review Committee and the Kansas Historic Preservation Office;

 

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 property owner will allow staff access to the property to photo document the project.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.