|
|
|
|
Lawrence historic resources Commission
Agenda Meeting september 17, 2015 6:30 pM
Action summary
Commissioners present: Arp, Buchanan-Young, Foster, Fry, Hernly, Quillin
Staff present: Cargill, Zollner
ITEM NO. 1: CoMMUNICATIONS
A. Receive communications from other commissions, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the general public.
Ms. Zollner said staff did receive a National Register Nomination from the State Historic Preservation Office, which was included in the agenda packet.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Hernly, to direct staff to write a letter in support of the nomination to the Historic Sites Board of Review.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
B. Disclosure of ex-parte communications.
Commissioner Fry said he was at 603 Tennessee Street this evening and talked with Mr. Holt briefly about the project.
C. Declaration of abstentions for specific agenda items by commissioners.
Commissioner Hernly and Commissioner Quillin abstained from Item 4.
ITEM NO. 2: Consent agenda
A. August 20, 2015 Action Summary.
B. Administrative Approvals
1. DR-15-00290 908 Rhode Island; Sign Permit; State Law Review and Certificate of Appropriateness
2. DR-15-00360 1012 Massachusetts Street; Sign Permit; Downtown Design Guidelines Review
3. DR-15-00375 321 Indiana Street; Inflow/Infiltration Abatement Permit; State Law Review
4. DR-15-00376 1009 Massachusetts Street; Commercial Plumbing Permit; State Law Review
5. DR-15-00377 901 Delaware Street; Sign Permit; Certificate of Appropriateness
6. DR-15-00386 256 N Michigan Street; New Commercial Structure; Certificate of Appropriateness
7. DR-15-00387 900 New Hampshire Street; Sign Permit; Certificate of Appropriateness and Downtown Design Guidelines Review
8. DR-15-00388 1500 Haskell Avenue; Solar Array Addition; Certificate of Appropriateness and State Law Review
9. DR-15-00392 805 New Hampshire Street; Mechanical Permit; State Law Review
10. DR-15-00396 1705 Vermont Street; Exterior Alteration; Certificate of Appropriateness
11. DR-15-00406 1124 Rhode Island Street; Foundation Repair; State Law Review
12. DR-15-00411 728 Rhode Island Street; Inflow/Infiltration Abatement Permit; State Law Review
13. DR-15-00412 1507 Stratford Road; Porch and Garage Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness
Commissioner Hernly asked if 1507 Stratford Road is his project.
Ms. Zollner said she believes so.
Commissioner Foster said he has some concerns about the sign for Jazz at 1012 Massachusetts Street.
Ms. Zollner said she worked with Jazz to reduce the size of the sign so this is smaller and in a slightly different location than the original proposal.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young asked if the sign lights up.
Ms. Zollner said it does. She explained in better detail the size and location of the size. She mentioned that this is a modern building so the sign band isn’t in a typical location.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hernly, seconded by Commissioner Quillin, to approve the Administrative Approvals and defer the August 20, 2015 Action Summary.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
ITEM NO. 3: L-15-00385 Public hearing for consideration of placing the structure located at 1005 Sunset Drive, the Fuller House, on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. Adopt Resolution 2015-12, if appropriate. Submitted by Lawrence Preservation Alliance on behalf of Steven and Lynn Scannell, the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
There was no applicant presentation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Phyllis Sapp said she lives on Avalon Road and is concerned about the ability of neighboring residents to expand or re-build their homes.
Commissioner Foster explained that new construction would be heard by the Historic Resources Commission and additions would be reviewed administratively.
Ms. Sapp asked how an administrative approval is performed.
Ms. Zollner said staff will perform the review when a building permit is submitted and it will not be forward to the Commission.
Ms. Sapp said it’s great that the Fuller House has been rehabilitated but feels the review would be an unnecessary complication for surrounding residents.
Commissioner Foster said the local ordinance only applies to our Local Register, and the environs definitions are in place to protect the integrity of historic structures. He mentioned that State environs reviews were in place for many years.
Ms. Sapp said her house is outside of the environs but feels it might be a deterrent for people looking to buy their house in the future.
Ms. Zollner explained that an administrative review requires no extra paperwork or time when a building permit is submitted, only the building permit application documents are used. She explained the types of things that staff will look at during a review.
Mr. Dennis Brown, Lawrence Preservation Alliance (LPA), said State Law environs review was in effect until two years ago, which included a 500 foot radius. He said this property dates back to the very early years of the Lawrence community but isn’t downtown, which is interesting and unique.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hernly, seconded by Commissioner Arp, to adopt Resolution 2015-12 and recommend to the City Commission the placement of 1005 Sunset Drive on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Hernly, seconded by Commissioner Arp, to adopt the environs definition for 1005 Sunset Drive as defined.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: DR-15-00316 815 Vermont Street; New Construction; Certificate of Appropriateness Review and Downtown Design Guidelines Review. The property is located in the environs of the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House (809 Vermont), Lawrence Register of Historic Places and is located in the Downtown Urban Conservation Overlay District. Submitted by Robert and Sandra Schumm, the property owners of record for Vermont Street Lot 51 and Robert Schumm on behalf of Downtown Equities II LC, owner of record for Vermont Street North 45 Feet of Lot 53.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
Commissioner Arp asked if it’s most like a four-and-a-half story building.
Ms. Zollner said, depending on the view, it could be seen as five stories.
Commissioner Arp asked how the height jives with the guideline that says taller buildings should be on the corner.
Ms. Zollner said nothing is truly precedent-setting because each project is unique, but it does need to meet the overall intent of the Design Guidelines. She said this project does not meet the guideline that says tall buildings should be on corner lots. She explained how staff reviews projects using the Design Guidelines as a whole. She said it would be difficult to limit the height of infill development to two stories or less given the history of development on the block and the desire for greater density. She showed a video rendering provided by the applicant.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Bob Schumm, applicant, explained details of the proposed project and explained the history of the property and the surrounding area. He explained the issues and concerns expressed by staff, commissioners, and the public at previous meetings and explained how those have been addressed.
Commissioner Foster asked about the openings near Vermont Street Station and the prospect of that property developing in the future.
Mr. Schumm said they’re setback three feet.
Commissioner Foster pondered the consequences of building a four story building right next to this project.
Mr. Schumm said it would be dark in there. He said they can either leave a blank wall or try the openings as proposed. He mentioned that they have also calculated the snow load for the adjacent property.
Commissioner Foster asked if the wall in question uses the same material as the north wall with the glass blocks.
Mr. Mike Myers, Hernly Architects, said no, this is a much lighter panel material.
Commissioner Foster suggested they play with the pattern of the masonry to break up the wall a bit.
Mr. Schumm said that’s a good idea.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Dennis Brown, LPA, said their focus has been the Certificate of Appropriateness review in relation to the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House. He said it would be great if the applicant can work on details with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). He said they feel the project would have the least impact on the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House as a three to four story building.
Ms. Courtney Shipley said she spends a considerable amount of time in the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House and is concerned about the proposed construction worsening the physical condition of the house, particularly large trucks and machinery. She believes the building is entirely too tall and dominates the environs, and stressed the historic significance of the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House. She mentioned that the south window on the second floor might be negatively impacted by the development.
Mr. Schumm said he appreciates the comments. He recalled the very first tall building on New Hampshire Street, Hobbs Taylor Lofts, and the similar comments and concerns that project generated. Now, he says the subsequent large buildings were no big deal because they fit into the area. He said being the first to build a large development on Vermont Street puts him in a similar position. He questioned what the relevant area is- the house next door or downtown as a whole. He responded to several concerns expressed by the public. He stressed that he would ensure the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House isn’t harmed during construction of his development, and hopes someone will eventually restore the home.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Fry asked staff if Conditions #1 and #2 have been met by the current proposal.
Ms. Zollner said yes, in staff’s opinion those have been met.
Commissioner Arp said he’s still struggling with the height. He said it seems that the height doesn’t correspond with the Design Guidelines, but rather with the economic viability of the project. He doesn’t feel an entire floor of office space qualifies as adding density, and is driving the height of the building. He said it’s hard to accept the “compromises” from developers for such large projects when original proposals are so aggressively large. He also stressed the pattern set forth by the Design Guidelines that directs taller buildings to the corners of the block. He is worried this will set a precedent and allow for even taller buildings on the block in the future.
Commissioner Foster said although this building, and others on New Hampshire Street, could be smaller, they are articulated well and are of exceptional quality. He suggested a different proposal of shorter height that isn’t designed or articulated well might be a greater eyesore. He suggested the economic factor comes into play in providing a better quality structure.
Commissioner Arp said he doesn’t see it that way. He doesn’t feel this project is proposing any higher quality materials than other similar projects.
Commissioner Foster said he’s referring more to the main façade, as well as the highly articulated alley elevation. He does feel the mass and scale should be in relation to buildings within close proximity, not several blocks away, and even the revised proposal pushes those limits.
Commissioner Arp said that’s a really good point. He stressed that the Design Guidelines have been in place for many years, and that developers should adhere to those guidelines with their initial designs. He also feels that although the HRC process has been scrutinized, it does make the end projects better.
Commissioner Fry said he’s comfortable with the design changes and the applicant’s current proposal. He feels the building fits well into the overall downtown area and is a compliment to the Lucy Hobbs Taylor House.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young said she has mixed feelings about the project but feels they should focus on their task. She feels the applicant has made positive strides with the project and would be in favor of approval with recommended conditions and review by the ARC for materials.
Commissioner Arp asked if she is ok with the height.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young said she is conflicted but feels the inverted block structure could work. She is concerned about the Old West Lawrence neighborhood and the homes along the alley. Ultimately, she feels the project will be ok in the long run.
Commissioner Arp would like to discuss their options for action.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young asked what the economic impact would be if some office spaces were converted to residential units.
Mr. Schumm said that’s the money floor- there’s more money made per square foot on that floor than any other floor. He cited 4.6 in the Design Guidelines, which indicates that the City will look favorably upon high density, mixed-use developments. He discussed the fact that economics is inevitably part of the equation in making the project work.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young asked why the clear story was removed if the elevator can’t come down four feet.
Mr. Schumm said he asked the architect to remove the clear story thinking it would reduce the height, but it didn’t work out that way. He said he would like to have the clear story back but is willing to stick with the plan they have currently proposed.
Ms. Zollner reminded the Commission they can appoint a subcommittee to review the project.
They discussed options.
Commissioner Arp said it sounds like he is in the minority of those concerned over height.
Commissioner Foster agreed.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, to approve the project as outlined in the staff report and find that it meets Design Guidelines 3-8, with a condition that materials will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee.
Unanimously approved 4-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, to approve the proposed project and make the determination that it does not encroach upon, damage or destroy the listed property with recommended amendments 3-5, with the condition that materials will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee.
Unanimously approved 4-0.
Mr. Schumm asked what they will discuss with the ARC.
Commissioner Foster said they’ll discuss materials only.
ITEM NO. 5: DR-15-00413 603 Tennessee Street; Driveway Width Variance; State Law Review. The property is a contributing structure to the Old West Lawrence Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. Submitted by Evan and Mary Holt, the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Evan Holt, applicant, explained the reason for their request is safety. He mentioned a 38 foot curb cut one block down the street. He said they’d prefer to use concrete because it’s most aesthetically pleasing but they’re open to other suggestions.
Commissioner Foster asked if any of the suggestions in the staff report struck a chord.
Mr. Holt said pavers, if done properly, would be too costly. He said they’re open to stained concrete but they don’t feel it’s aesthetically pleasing.
Commissioner Hernly asked if KDOT has requirements for the construction of the entrance drive.
Mr. Holt said yes, they did approve the initial permit but asked that they come back for final approval once details are finalized about materials. He said they will also submit their project to the City once they decide on materials.
Commissioner Foster asked about the safety of the driveway and how it’s currently used.
Mr. Holt explained that they must back out into traffic on 6th Street. He said their other two car garage is too small for a full size vehicle and has no electricity.
Commissioner Hernly asked what they plan to do with the sidewalk portion of the driveway.
Mr. Holt said they intend to leave the sidewalk as is unless they are required to blend it with the new concrete.
Commissioner Foster asked if the problem is only the location of the curb cut, as opposed to the width.
Mr. Holt said it solves part of the problem. He explained that they would like to utilize the ADA compliant portion of the home, which isn’t feasible without a wider curb cut.
Commissioner Foster explained why the driveway request raises historic red flags.
Mr. Holt said he does understand the concern, and doesn’t think they would be making the request if they weren’t backing out onto a highway with a 35 mph speed limit.
No public comment
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Hernly asked how old the existing concrete is.
Mr. Holt said about seven years old.
Commissioner Fry said he appreciates staff’s recommendations for this project. He said he went out to Walmart to look at their grass pavers and said it doesn’t seem to work. He added that staining an old piece of concrete next to a new piece of concrete will undoubtedly result in two different colors.
Commissioner Hernly said his main concern is differentiating between the driveway and the sidewalk, but has no other issues with the project.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hernly, seconded by Commissioner Fry, to approve the project using standard concrete with the condition that the existing sidewalk remain in place or is reconstructed to be continuous and differentiated from the driveway.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
ITEM
NO. 6: DR-15-00416 1313 Rhode Island Street; Residential Addition;
State Law Review. The property is a contributing structure to the South Rhode
Island and New Hampshire Street Historic Residential District. Submitted by
Mike Myers for Adam Mansfield and Anne Dotter, the property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 7: DR-15-00418 1001 Delaware Street; Residential Addition; Certificate of Appropriateness. Submitted by Scott Trettel on behalf of Simon and Codi Bates, the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Scott Trettel, applicant, said the property owners are planning a family and trying to create some above-grade bedroom space. He said they’re trying to construct something as subtle as possible that meets their square footage requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. KT Walsh said the property owners and architect are wonderful people. She said this project speaks to a larger issue- the loss of smaller vernacular housing in the City. She said she appreciates the differentiation between the new and old materials. She questioned why someone would move to a historic neighborhood with small houses if they need a large house.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Hernly asked if the existing garage was built in 2008.
Ms. Zollner said it was built in 2009.
Commissioner Hernly asked how it was placed on the alley with the door facing the alley that has a five foot setback requirement.
Ms. Zollner said she would have to check the building permit.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young asked if the concrete on the pedestrian side of the fence is historically appropriate.
Ms. Zollner said that is something the Commission can discuss.
Commissioner Hernly asked if the grade is the same on either side of the concrete.
Mr. Trettel said the property owners’ intention is not only to increase the height of the fence but to improve the grade as well. He said they hope to prevent additional deterioration of the brick sidewalk by improving the grade. He said he did notify the homeowners that a new survey would be required.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young said concrete would be acceptable on the interior but not the exterior of the fence.
Commissioner Foster said it’s a very contemporary fence design and said he doesn’t have a problem with the concrete.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Quillin, seconded by Commissioner Arp, to approve the project with amendments as recommended in the staff report.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
ITEM NO. 8: DR-15-00424 1200 Pennsylvania Street; New Residential Construction; Certificate of Appropriateness. Submitted by Dan Rockhill on behalf of Studio 804 Inc, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Students from Studio 804, responded to staff’s concerns. Students handed out several photos of surrounding properties to support their proposal.
Commissioner Foster explained that the Commission is always concerned about establishing precedence, and he reminded everyone that a decision on one specific project does not set precedence for other future projects. He explained that any changes after the project is approved would need to come back to staff or the HRC for approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. KT Walsh said for the most part, the ELNA loves Studio 804. She asked what the sale price would be on this home.
Mr. Dan Rockhill, Studio 804, said around $300,000.
Ms. Walsh said that is the problem. She asked how much the one down the street sold for.
Mr. Rockhill said a little less than that. He offered to address the issue.
Ms. Walsh said affordable homes in East Lawrence are $100,000-$125,000. She explained that a portion of the neighborhood has a median annual income of $11,500. She said she really respects what Studio 804 is doing, but they’re building in a neighborhood that’s fighting a cultural battle, and explained her concerns of gentrification and displacement in the neighborhood. She pleaded with the applicant to revise the building materials to make the home more affordable.
Mr. Rockhill said he’s very sensitive to this issue. He said there are a dozen or so homes listed on Zillow for $150,000 or less. He doesn’t like the suggestion that they’re gentrifying the neighborhood, but rather they’re providing an example of sustainable building practices. He said the only way they’ll be able to recover their substantial investment on the lot and a half is to build a home around $300,000.
Ms. Walsh said Tenants to Homeowners would love to work with Studio 804, and they’re focused on green and affordable housing. She challenged Studio 804 to prove to the community that an environmentally friendly home could also be available to people without a lot of money.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Foster said he appreciates the applicant’s presentation addressing staff’s recommendations. He said if this project is deferred to the ARC it would be hard to make revisions that wouldn’t dilute their minimalistic approach. He mentioned the sidewalks are in the right-of-way so those should be left alone.
Ms. Zollner said that’s correct but they are responsible for maintaining them.
Commissioner Hernly asked what purpose the sliding barn doors serve.
The students said they are not only a response to the barns doors in the area historically, but they can shade windows from the sun in the hotter months and let it light during the colder months.
Commissioner Hernly said a roof overhand would accomplish the same thing.
The students said they did consider an overhang, but it uses more material, and they don’t intend to copy historic structures.
Commissioner Hernly asked if they are operated manually.
The students said yes.
Commissioner Hernly said he doesn’t have a problem with the barn door element but feels they won’t be used as they’re intended. He said his only other design issue is the entrance. He said it’s a very internally focused building, and the recessed front entrance space doesn’t respond to the neighborhood in a positive way. He also feels the double sidewalk seems unnecessary.
The students said the double sidewalk was a way to demonstrate sustainability because the middle of the walkways will be a bio swell.
Commissioner Hernly asked if rain water will be collected and diverted to that space.
The students said yes.
Commissioner Foster asked the applicant to respond to Commissioner Hernly’s concern about the lack of a front porch.
The students said they observed a lot of people in the area sitting in their backyards, and the courtyard space provides a way to observe the neighborhood from the confines of the home. She feels the covered front porch space is adequate and just as functional as any other front porch.
Ms. Walsh said it depends on the season. She asked the applicant if they walked the neighborhood.
The students said they walked around and one student has lived in Lawrence for a year now and has observed the seasons. She said she spends a lot of time in her backyard and does not spend time on her front porch. She doesn’t feel that everyone prefers to sit on a front porch.
Mr. Max Forester, Studio 804, feels the front porch speaks to a certain time. He said people living in more modern buildings sit on their back deck because they don’t have a substantial front porch. He feels the porch isn’t included on this design for that reason.
The students of Studio 804 said the vestibule makes a connection to the courtyard, and is their own adaptation of a front porch.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young said if there were historic district design guidelines for this area, they would describe a front porch community. She mentioned that some administrative reviews have even required a front porch be added back to homes.
Commissioner Hernly said that also goes back to the idea of walkable neighborhoods. He pointed out that there are sidewalks throughout the neighborhood, that wraparound this house in particular. He said the front porch acts as a transition between the public and private space. He compared the proposed design to a museum instead of a residence.
Commissioner Foster said these aren’t issues unique to this application, and recognized that not everyone cares for a front porch. He said he appreciates his own front porch at the sense of community it provides. He challenged the applicant to review this design element to help integrate the future occupants into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hernly mentioned the residential subdivision at 15th & Haskell Streets that replaced a couple older houses that faced Haskell Street. He said the result is an intersection that is automobile oriented, and not pedestrian oriented, because all of the houses face inward.
Mr. Max Forester said he defines a front porch as a covered arrival to the building, and he believes they have achieved that definition. He mentioned that the covered part of the porch is transparent.
Ms. Reagan, Studio 804, feels they’ve created a unique situation with the courtyard that could be neighborhood gathering place.
Commissioner Hernly asked if the barn doors can also slide over the porch entrance.
The students said they do not slide over the porch.
Commissioner Hernly feels the entrance is defined by the continuation of the track over the entryway, and there’s no definition of scale.
Commissioner Foster asked whether other commissioner feel the project should be referred to the ARC or if their comments have been more for the applicant’s absorption.
Ms Reagan said they have a tight timeline and must break ground by October 1st. She urged commissioners to make a decision this evening and not defer the project to another meeting.
Commissioner Foster asked if they have any other comments regarding concerns raised by the Commission.
The students said they have more pictures that address concerns regarding vents.
Commissioner Foster asked if they have any additional responded regarding the porch or connection to the community.
The students said the windows were created in line with the track that runs above them, so they are using the track to create a sense of scale.
The students said the scale was very purposeful. She said they felt something more recessed was more appropriate than a porch that might stick out against their clean look. She said the porch is larger than 70 square feet. She feels the glass roof will be welcoming.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young asked the applicant if the house would attract an owner that would mesh well with the community, even if the house was free.
The students said the courtyard space provides a communal space and the front porch is just as welcoming.
Ms. Reagan said the sustainable aspects of this project would attract an innovative, forward-thinking homeowner, and would appreciate the uniqueness of the home and the neighborhood.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Foster proposed their options for action.
Commissioner Arp said he would approve with conditions four through six.
Commissioners Fry and Quillin agreed.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Quillin, to approve the project with amendments 4, 5, and 6 as recommended in the staff report.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Ms. Zollner asked if approval of final construction documents includes the metal roof option that was presented this evening.
The Commission agreed that was appropriate to include.
ITEM NO. 9: Adopt the following resolutions to begin the Landmark process for City owned properties:
1. Resolution 2015-07 Union Pacific Depot
2. Resolution 2015-08 Carnegie Building
3. Resolution 2015-09 Fire Station #1
4. Resolution 2015-10 Oak Hill Cemetery
5. Resolution 2015-11 Clinton Park
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner presented the item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Hernly, to adopt Resolution 2015-07.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Fry, to adopt Resolution 2015-08.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Quillin, to adopt Resolution 2015-09.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Hernly, to adopt Resolution 2015-10.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Arp, seconded by Commissioner Hernly, to adopt Resolution 2015-11.
Unanimously approved 6-0.
ITEM NO. 10: MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
A. There were no Board of Zoning Appeals applications received since August 20, 2015.
B. There were no demolition permits received since the August 20, 2015 meeting.
C. There were no Architectural Review Committee approvals since August 20, 2015.
D. General public comment.
Mr. Dennis Brown, LPA, said their annual meeting is a week from
Sunday and they’ll meet at the Eudora City Hall. He said they
will tour the Eudora Community Museum.
E. Miscellaneous matters from City staff and Commission members.
Commissioner Hernly mentioned that the Kansas Preservation Conference is October 7-8 in Manhattan. He said Tom Parish is the keynote speaker. He’s a photographer who’s completed a study on subterranean stone structures in the Flint Hills.
Commissioner Foster said he appreciates Ms. Walsh’s earlier comments very much.
Ms. Zollner said she spoke with NAPC about the Alliance Review at from Commissioner training and she will forward a copy to commissioners.
They discussed training opportunities.
Commissioner Arp asked if any other commissioners received an email from a student regarding subterranean passages in Lawrence.
Ms. Zollner said she did, and in her research there has always been rumors about underground tunnels in Downtown Lawrence but there has never been anything factual to substantiate that. She said there are some buildings that extend underneath the sidewalks and have basement spaces.
Commissioner Buchanan-Young said there are some that are interconnected. She said she’s gone from Liberty Hall to Hobbs underground. She explained that they are part of the original belt system.
Ms. Walsh said there’s also a door under a store at 9th & Massachusetts Street.
They further discussed a tunnel system.
ADJOURN 10:31 PM