View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMISSION
March 13, 2006 5:15 p.m.
Linda Armstrong called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m.
Linda Armstrong, John Carr, Susan Goertz, Matt Grundy and Clay Lozier answered
roll call. Jonna Wensel, Preservation Planner, and Jackie Norton, Secretary,
represented City Staff. Several members of the public were present.
objection, Chairperson Armstrong moved consideration of the cases on the agenda
ahead of the meeting summary review and called the first case.
NO. 06-003D – Consideration of a request by Tom Adams for a certificate of
appropriateness for the installation of a metal awning at 131 North Morse,
Dougherty Historic District.
Planner Jonna Wensel reviewed the application for the installation of an awning
at 131 North Morse. The structure is a late 19th
century Queen Anne style residence characterized by a steeply pitched hipped
roof with several cross gables. There is a right bay and some leaded glass;
however, all other remaining details are covered by siding. There are two rear
additions and the windows are double hung sash windows. Although the structure
has been somewhat altered by the siding, the house nonetheless retains its
integrity in setting, mass, and association with the rest of the historic
applicant proposes to install an awning over the paired windows at the back of
the house. As the awning meets all standards for review and guidelines, staff
Armstrong asked the applicant, Mr. Adams if he had comments. Mr. Adams said the
family is requesting to install the awning due to a problem with the sun during
the morning hours.
John Carr said he is in agreement with staff for installation of the awning and
the awning will hide the upper sashes.
Clay Lozier moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness, as recommended
by staff. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, which carried 5-0.
No. 06-004D - Consideration of a request by Richard Held and Matthew Wilson for
a certificate of appropriateness for
a free standing sign at 242 West
Franklin Street, Dougherty
Wensel reviewed the application for a new sign at 242 West Franklin Street. The home at the corner of Franklin and Morse is
known as the Ringo-Dougherty-Baird house and is a fine example of a fine
The applicants, Mr. Held and Mr. Wilson propose to install a free
standing sign at the corner of the front yard. The sign will be12” high and 24”
wide, and will display the name, phone number and website of the bed and
breakfast business. The finish of the sign will be matte. It will be made of
aluminum, framed in wood and suspended from a wrought iron bracket and post.
The proposed sign is in compliance with the provisions
for size and location, and is appropriate. The sign meets the standards for
review and guidelines; therefore staff recommended approval of HDRC Case
Mr. Lozier said the sign is very discreet and will be
legible only from a short distance.
Ms. Armstrong asked the applicant to include a picture
of the wrought iron once it has been designed. Mr. Held, said they are working
on the post and at present they know the post will be black; the post and cross
beam will be wrought iron and the top beam will include some minor scroll work.
Mr. Carr said he was pleased with the design of the
sign and that it is free standing. Mr. Grundy asked the height of the sign and
Mr. Held said it will be approximately five feet tall.
Mr. Armstrong asked if there were any other questions
or comments. Hearing none she asked for a motion.
Mr. Matt Grundy asked if the pole needed to be
approved during this meeting. Ms. Armstrong said the commission could request the
information be provided to staff for staff approval or a stipulation could be
made to consider the post as a separate submission. Mr. Lozier and Mr. Carr
stated they were comfortable with staff making an administrative approval on
design of the pole.
Mr. Grundy moved to approve the applications submitted
with the stipulation that the post not exceed six feet and approval of the post
be made by staff. The motion was seconded by Ms. Susan Goertz and passed
V. Case No. 06-004J - Consideration of a request by the Liberty Christian Church for a
certificate of appropriateness for a new retaining wall and canvas awning at
427 East Kansas, Jewell Historic District.
Ms. Wensel reviewed the application, stating the Liberty Christian
Church occupies the Victorian Gothic Revival structure on the corner of Kansas and Lincoln Streets and was built around 1907. Constructed
of brick, the church features a complex gabled roof, large gothic-arched
stained-glass windows, and a two- story steeple oriented over an angled front
door. A modern two-story brick addition is connected to the south façade of the
church via a two story glass walkway. The church property spans the large
corner lot that spans Kansas to Mill Street,
the south half of which is parking.
Ms. Wensel stated this application consists of two parts; part one
proposes to replace the low existing retaining wall along the west side of the
property. The new wall will be of rusticated stone blocks, to match the
foundation of the church building and will be 72-feet long and 3-feet high. The
lawn will be back-filled and leveled. Part two of the application proposes to
install a welded frame entry canopy with a Sunbrella canvas awning in a color
to match the color of the church building. The canopy will be 13-feet deep by
9-feet wide, with a height of 3-feet 8-inches above the door opening. The
canopy will be installed at the rear entrance of the church, towards the
parking lot to the south.
Staff recommended approval of HDRC CASE No. 06-004J as it meets the
standards for review and guidelines.
Ms. Goertz asked if the wall would change the plane of the
sidewalk. Mr. Brock said it would not. Mr. Carr said the termination point of
the retaining wall will be Lincoln and Kansas with a
gradual slope to the sidewalk.
Mr. Carr asked if the block being considered is Pavestone. Mr.
Brock said yes. He further commented the stone is made in 6, 12 and 18-inch
lengths and will be staggered to duplicate the foundation of the church. Mr.
Carr asked if the retaining wall will be a dry stack sloping towards the
church. Mr. Carr continued by saying the awning is a very nice addition to the
back of the church.
Ms. Armstrong noted for the record that 3 members of the
commission are members of the congregation but they have no financial interest
in this project or financial gain riding on this vote so they can continue to
participate in this process. She then asked for a motion.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application as submitted and
Ms. Goertz seconded the motion. The vote was 5 – 0.
VI. Case No.
06-005J – Consideration of a request by Creative Interiors and Exteriors for a
certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a new front porch
railing system at 456 East Mississippi, Jewell Historic District.
Armstrong noted that the applicant, John Carr, will participate in discussion
of this application but will not vote.
Wensel began by stating this residence, known as the Cardinal House, was
constructed around 1912 and was originally call the Belleview House. The site
is adjacent to the William Jewell College campus and served a variety of functions for the
college over the years, most recently as a sorority house. The building was considered
for demolition in 2001, but within the past year the residence has gone through
a complete renovation and is once again a single family home. The most
distinctive feature is a Palladian window over a projecting bay. The wrap
around porch is open with square posts and simple capitals.
applicant, John Carr, proposed to install a new front porch railing system. The
porch railing will be 32 inches high at the handrail, which is beveled, and 36
inches high at the newel posts, which will have squared caps. It will be
constructed primarily of cedar with pine bed molding. The proposed porch
railing is compatible in scale, design and materials with the existing façade
and is appropriate. The application meets the standards for review and guidelines;
therefore staff recommended approval of HDRC Case No. 06-005J.
Carr discussed the sample he brought to the meeting explaining it is to scale,
however; the materials are not what will be used. He explained surfaced cedar
will be used.
Grundy noted this is an improvement to the residence. Mr. Carr said he could
find no evidence of a porch railing in the past but the property owner’s insurance
company had asked for one. Ms. Goertz said the handrail complements the style
of the house.
Armstrong asked if there were additional questions from the Commission. Hearing
none she asked for a motion. Mr. Lozier moved to approve the application as
submitted and Mr. Grundy seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 – 0 – 1
(John Carr abstained).
Case No. 06-003SUP [For HDRC Comment Only]
Armstrong stated the HDRC has been asked to comment on the appropriateness of
multi- family use of the structure at 438 East Franklin Street and
will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 14, 2006.
Wensel began her review of the application stating the applicant, Mike Mundy is
proposing to rehabilitate 438 East Franklin to include three residential units with three parking
spaces and to construct a three car detached garage behind the primary
structure. A special use permit is necessary for any attached single-family
dwelling or low density multi-family structures in neighborhoods zoned as
Neighborhood Conservation Residential Districts (RNC). The three car garage
will require a variance from the accessory structures requirement of the
Unified Development Ordinance which allows for a garage of 800 sq. ft. on less
than one-half acre. This lot is just under one-half acre and the proposed
garage is 988 sq. ft., which is 24% larger than the permitted size.
Wensel noted the HDRC has commented on two previous P&Z applications
regarding this property. The first in 2004 was to construct a three-unit wing
to the rear of the property. This was denied by City Council in December 2004;
the second in 2005 was for a special use permit to construct a five-unit structure
on the property following the demolition of the existing building. This request
was tabled by Planning and Zoning in March 2005 and the City Council denied the
request to demolish the structure. She further stated the SUP for the structures
use as an eight-unit apartment building has expired pursuant to the City’s
Sunset Provision. Therefore, the HDRC is asked to comment on the
appropriateness of the proposed use as a three-family residence for the Special
Use Permit application and on the scale of the garage for the variance request
before this case is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission tomorrow.
Lozier said he loves the idea of three nice condos in this neighborhood as the current
trend is for people to return to college towns for retirement. He also said
that the density is less with this proposal than with previous applications.
Armstrong asked how the neighbors feel about this proposal. Mr. Mike Mundy said
in the past the neighbors had objected to more than six units in the structure
and if the home were torn down, the neighbors wanted it replaced with a single
family structure. He said there was a neighborhood meeting on November 12 and
people who were in attendance signed a petition stating they were in agreement with
the three-unit proposal.
Armstrong said there had been opposition to all the parking along the alleyway
and provision of the enclosed parking will be attractive to prospective owners
of the condos. Mr. Lozier said the garage will allow for guest parking too.
Goertz asked if the stairway on the rear of the structure is the access to the
second and third floor condos and Mr. Mundy said an elevator will be installed.
The old stairway will be torn off and replaced.
Grundy asked how large each condo will be and Mr. Mundy said approximately 1400
sq. ft. Mr. Grundy said this project should attract very good occupants.
Carr said this structure has never been an asset and this project is long overdue.
The three units will work well with the neighborhood.
Lozier said this project will be the crown jewel of the Historic District. Ms.
Armstrong said the project addresses the previous concerns of the neighbors.
Ms. Goertz said the garage will eliminate some of the street parking issues.
HDRC Case No. 06-006J – Consideration of a request by Mike Mundy for a
certificate of appropriateness for the restoration of the exterior and
construction of a new garage at 438 East Franklin, Jewell Historic District.
Wensel began by stating this large vernacular brick building was constructed as
the Liberty Female College in about 1855. It has three stories with a
flat-topped, hipped roof. It is rectangular in plan and features regularly
spaced, sash-type windows on all three levels and a symmetrical façade with a
prominent front door. Stucco cladding was added in the 1930s and the original
window openings were reduced in size. The original three-story, full-width wood
frame porch was removed from the front façade, and a one-story wood frame
addition was constructed at the rear of the building. The building has been
multi-family housing for much of its existence, and in 2004 was considered for
application contains two proposals. Part 1 proposes to restore the exterior of
the building to its original appearance by removing the stucco cladding,
replacing the roof and gutters, reconstructing the three-story front porch, and
restoring the window and front door openings to their original size. A
three-story entry stairway and full-width landings will be constructed of wood
on the back of the building.
exterior will be re-clad with hand-made bricks, which will be similar in color
and size to the existing brick veneer. Windows will be double-hung
aluminum-clad wood, and fit to the original openings. The roof will be replaced
with composition shingles and new gutters. On the west façade, hardieboard
siding will replace existing siding on the one-story projection, with a new
decorative wood railing surrounding the roof.
front porches will be Victorian-inspired, taking design elements from the
original, with a decorative balustrade of turned spindles and cut-work
ornamentation. There will be no railing on the ground floor porch, but a
balustrade will enclose the widow’s walk on top of the roof.
Wensel continued stating part two of the proposal is for construction of a
three-car detached garage to the north of the property, facing the alley. The
garage will be clad in wood or hardieboard lap siding, trimmed with cedar. The
roof will be composition shingles, to match the house. The garage will be 988
square feet, with three bays, facing the alley. It will have a hipped roof, to
reflect that on the main house. The drive up to the garage doors, and three
paring pads to the garage, will be paved with brick. The proposed garage will
complement the setbacks, scale, parking, building and garage orientation of the
neighborhood. The garage will not impede any of the surrounding residences. The
garage meets the required setbacks for accessory structures and is appropriate.
application meets the standards for review and guidelines; therefore, staff
recommends approval of HDRC Case No. 06-006J.
Grundy stated he is impressed with the plans for the building and the addition
of the garage. This is one of the most impressive applications that he has seen.
Armstrong said that in scale and scope this will be one of the most dramatic
transformations that has occurred in the historic district. There have been
some dramatic saves the past ten years but this will surpass anything to date.
Mundy stated part of the reason for the size of the garage is the storage area
at the front of each garage bay.
Armstrong said the variance request for the garage is warranted because a
multi-family structure could not be accommodated as gracefully without the
Lozier said this does not set precedence for multi-family housing in the
historic district because of the uniqueness of the structure and the historic
Grundy said the square footage of living space will not be matched in the
Carr agrees with all previous comments and said the project is long overdue.
This is a unique structure and Planning and Zoning should grant the variance
for the garage. He then asked about details of the proposed front door. Mr.
Mundy said they are not sure of the design at this time. Mr. Vern Drottz,
architect, said he is considering a simple door with simple carving in the
lower panels and a large window. Mr. Carr asked if the roof balustrade was a
simple 2” x 2” and Mr. Drottz said it is. Mr. Carr then asked about the
decorative molding on the top of the porch post. He next inquired about the
fret work on the porch rail; whether it is spindles or cut work. Mr. Drottz
confirmed that it is cut work.
Armstrong said she thought the Commission could proceed with the information as
it has been presented but if there are any changes they could be submitted for
the file. Mr. Drottz said after all pricing and materials have been compiled he
will submit a final packet for the Commission.
Lozier asked what the next step would be for the Commission. Ms. Armstrong said
a motion should be made on the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted by
staff with the stipulation that design details be provided when available.
Grundy stated he believed the application should be tabled until all details
are submitted. Ms. Armstrong suggested the application could be approved with
the stipulation that exterior details will be submitted later. Mr. Drottz asked
if the questions from the Commission are about materials that will be used for
the front and back porch. Mr. Carr said the specific question is about the fret
work on the front porch. Mr. Grundy said it does not make sense to approve something
that isn’t complete.
Armstrong said in past cases like this, the builder has been held accountable
to follow what is shown on the blueprint.
Grundy made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
stipulation that materials be provided as they become available and that the
door is approved with the ornamentation as represented in the blueprint. Mr.
Lozier seconded the motion which passed 5 – 0.
Case No. 06-005LS – Consideration of a request by Kevin Graham for a certificate
of appropriateness for a sign at 11 East Kansas, Liberty Square
Armstrong noted the sign has been installed and this is an after-the-fact
Wensel began her review of the application by stating this two-story retail
building dates from about 1884 and has been occupied by several different
businesses including a grocery store, fabric shop, and most recently Sherlock’s
Home book store and tearoom. It is now the legal offices of Tim Flook and Kevin
Graham. The entrance to this building is recessed and is flanked by large plate
glass display windows. A large transom spans the width of the building, and is
divided by a grid of muntins. The first and second stories are divided by a
metal fascia. The second story features tall arched windows topped with
triangular pediments, and a decorative cornice with brackets at the roof line.
applicant proposed to install a new façade sign on the fascia, replacing the
existing sign. The proposed sign is 2 feet high by 16 feet wide and is made of
medium density overlay plywood signboard. The sign displays the names of the
legal offices “Floor & Graham, P.C.” in block letters and is painted to
match the color scheme of the building. The proposed sign conforms to current
UDO standards but does not meet Design Guidelines because it obscures an
architectural element. There is no appropriate place to install a sign of this
size on this building façade without obstructing design elements, except above
the second story windows. A perpendicular sign or a window sign would also be
Wensel continued by saying because the sign conforms to UDO standards but does
not conform to Design Guidelines, and because the new sign replaces an existing
sign that was approved by the HDRC in 2002, it is the position of staff to
remain neutral on HDRC Case No. 06-005LS.
Lozier stated the Commission made a mistake approving the Sherlock’s Home sign
and because the Commission made one mistake he does not believe they need to
repeat the mistake.
Armstrong said if she remembered correctly the Sherlock’s Home sign was also
presented as an after the fact application. The sign has been purchased and was
awaiting installation. Ms. Wensel stated that the records from the previous
HDRC meetings were included in the packet and the sign was in place on the
previous location of the book store.
Carr said it was an effort by the Commission to accommodate Mr. Hooper and this
was another retail business on the square and the Commission was compromising.
Mr. Carr further commented this was an opportunity to correct a poor precedent.
Mr. Lozier agreed. Mr. Carr said a smaller sign above the transom windows or a
window sign would be the best alternative.
Goertz said the sign cuts the center line and that she had read the previous
minutes. Their argument was that the sign represented the name of a pub in London that
was Sherlock’s Home pub, thus the importance. The law firm has no such
connection to history. This is a chance to improve the sign.
Lozier stated if the applicants had presented this sign to the Commission prior
to installation of the sign, it would have been denied. Mr. Grundy, Mr. Carr
and Ms. Armstrong concurred. Ms. Armstrong further commented that if the
applicant had been in attendance a better solution could have been discussed.
She is concerned that some people and businesses think signage on the square
can be installed without approval.
Lozier said occasionally the Commission takes economic hardship into account and
he doesn’t think that is an issue in this case. He thinks, pure and simple, it
does not meet the Design Guidelines and the application should be denied. The
sign should come down and perhaps the Design Subcommittee can work with the
applicant for an alternative.
Grundy said this is a different situation. Sherlock’s Home moved from another
location and had an existing sign. The sign for Flook and Graham is a new sign
and has not been in another location.
Carr said this is a great opportunity to make this building even better.
Armstrong says the policy in the Guidelines states when a non-conforming
element is up for replacement the Commission has the opportunity to render a
new decision and are not forced to repeat a past mistake.
Lozier said he believes the Commission should treat this like a new application
and make a decision based on the Design Guidelines.
Armstrong asked if the members of the Commission were comfortable making a
decision without the applicant present. The Commissioners agreed that they were.
Grundy said he was unsure of the Commission’s ability to enforce their
decisions. Ms. Armstrong said they could not let that fact determine their
Armstrong asked for a motion. Mr. Lozier made a motion to deny the application
and Mr. Carr seconded the motion. It passed 5 – 0.
No. 06-006LS – Consideration of a request by Lisa Hemphill for a certificate of
appropriateness for the installation of a sign at 5 East Kansas,
Liberty Square Historic District.
Wensel began her review by stating this Romanesque Revival commercial building
has retained much of its historic integrity since its construction in 1895.
Bell Hardware operated from this location until the business was purchased in
1902 by Sterling Price Boggess. The Boggess Hardware store closed in 1990, and
was replaced by the Hardware Café. The main entrance is recessed between
symmetrical display windows, flanked by decorative metal pilasters. The second
story features three round arched windows separated by decorative colonettes.
The roof line is punctuated by a rectangular pediment and cone finials.
Wensel said the applicant, Lisa Hemphill, proposes to install a perpendicular
sign on the façade of 5 East Kansas for a new women’s clothing store that will open on
the second floor of the building. The proposed sign is 48 inches wide by 18
inches high, and features the name of the business “Zabedo” within a stylized
logo. The sign will be constructed of urethane foam board and installed on a
wrought iron bracket on the metal pilaster to the right of the main entrance.
The sign meets to UDO requirements for signs and is appropriate. It will not
detract from the building or obstruct any architectural elements. Staff
encourages the applicant to take care when installing the bracket to avoid
damage to the metal pilaster.
Wensel noted the application meets the standards for review and guidelines;
therefore, staff recommends approval of HDRC Case No. 06-006LS.
Lozier asked how the sign will be mounted and Ms. Wensel stated it will be
mounted on a wrought iron bracket and the metal pilaster that is painted red is
indented and the white is in relief. Ms. Wensel commented she would suggest to
the applicant that the sign be mounted on one of the red indented areas. It is
old metal and that is a concern because drilling holes could cause rusting.
Carr asked if the area is a tin type metal or cast iron. Ms. Wensel said tin.
She also stated there is no other location on the building to place the sign.
Mr. Carr asked what is on either side of the tin area. Ms. Wensel said there is
nothing; it is recessed to the window frame. Mr. Carr shares staff’s concern
about the metal and would like to see bracket that could wrap around the area.
Grundy asked what part of this building is metal and Ms. Armstrong said the
entire area is metal; the red stripes are just indented.
Carr stated he thought the sign company would be schooled in proper
applications. Ms. Wensel said the applicant is using the same sign company as
Quotations on Water Street and Roger Burnett’s law office.
Armstrong asked if the sign could be approved but stipulate the mounting would
not be approved. Mr. Grundy suggested the sign be approved and notify the
applicant that they have not provided any design for the bracket. Ms. Wensel
said the bracket has been approved by the Commission before.
Lozier said the sign is fine and the brackets are fine the only problem is the
mounting. Mr. Grundy said the sign company would either not be given that
information or they would ignore it and the damage would be done. He suggested
tabling the application and requiring information about the actual way the sign
will be mounted.
Lozier asked if the sign company could meet with the Design Subcommittee to
discuss proper installation. The sign could be approved by the Commission at
Armstrong asked if the Commission would consider approving the sign with the
stipulation the applicant meet with staff for approval on mounting of the sign.
She then asked if there were additional comments and if not, asked for a
Grundy made a motion to approve HDRC Case No. 06-006LS as presented by staff,
with the stipulation that the mounting of the sign be approved by staff. Mr.
Lozier seconded the motion which carried 5 – 0.
of Meeting Summary: February 13, 2006
Armstrong asked for a show of hands from everyone in favor of accepting the
summary as presented. The vote was 5 – 0
XI. Miscellaneous matters from the Commission.
Carr asked why the foundation on Mr. Dobberstine’s new construction on East Kansas is
at least six feet above grade. Ms. Wensel stated she has spoken with Mr. Dobberstine
at least twice and that it is exactly what was approved. She went on to say
that Mr. Dobberstine said once it is back filled and the stairs go on and the
brick detailing goes on the basement, it will be fine. She further said Mr. Dobberstine
will accept calls from anyone to discuss their concerns. She also said she had
asked the building inspectors to check the foundation and it is accurate. One
of the reasons for the height is the rear-entry garage.
Carr asked if the back fill will create a slope from the foundation to the
street. Ms. Wensel said no. At this time the foundation is below grade. Mr.
Carr said he disagrees. He further commented that it was his understanding the
porch would be the same level as the other porch. As he reads the blueprint
that was submitted with the application, he doesn’t see that. He said he is
trying to trust the integrity of the builder and that everything will be in
accordance with what was approved.
Wensel asked if the Commission would like to invite Mr. Dobberstine back for
additional conversation or meet with him on site. Ms. Armstrong asked for an on
sight tour to discuss the construction with Mr. Dobberstine. Ms. Wensel said
she would set up a meeting. Mr. Grundy asked that it be scheduled later in the
evening or on a weekend. Ms. Wensel asked if 5:30 would be agreeable and Mr.
Grundy said 6:00 would be better.
Wensel asked if any of the Commissioners planned to attend the Commissioner
training that is being held in Lee’s
Summit, Monday, March 20. Mr. Grundy,
Ms. Goertz and Ms. Geilker have previously stated they would attend. Mr. Carr
said he would contact Ms. Wensel on Tuesday, March 14.
Wensel then displayed the certificate that Joann Radetic from the State
Historic Preservation office had presented to Liberty. The certificate is for
Liberty’s participation in the CLG program for the past twenty years. Everyone
was thankful for the certificate.
Wensel handed out nomination forms for the Preservation Awards that will be
presented again this year. The deadline for nominations is 5:00 p.m., April 14, 2006.
Armstrong asked if previous non-award winners were eligible again this year.
Mr. Wensel said they are, and that fewer supporting materials would need to be
submitted because they are still on file from 2005.
Grundy asked how many Commissioners are involved in Historic Downtown Liberty,
Inc. because he has been asked to become a member. There are no Commissioners
involved at this time.
meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.