View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
2007 5:30 p.m.
Ms. Wensel said the old Hardware Café building at 5 East Kansas was built in 1895 and is one of the
oldest and best preserved commercial buildings in Liberty. It is an excellent example of the
Richardson Romanesque style, with its heavy rounded arches and pilasters
dominating the second floor. The street level retail store front is in near
original condition, with its recessed entry and full-height display windows. It
was best known as the Boggess Hardware Store building until 1990, when it was
sold and reopened as the Hardware Café. It is soon to be re-opened as Los
Compas Mexican Restaurant.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing sign with a
new sign. The sign will be 13 ½ inches high by 10 feet long and made of metal
sign material. The lettering will be digitally transferred. The sign will be
installed on the signboard, in the same location as the existing sign. The sign
meets the standards for size and placement. It will not be lighted. The new
sign will not obstruct or disguise any significant façade elements.
The sign that was initially proposed reads “Los Compas” in
block lettering, with “Mexican Restaurant” in italics and the restaurant’s logo
on both ends of the sign. It was the opinion of staff that the proposed design
did not fit the scale or proportion of the signboard. It does not necessarily
complement the style or color of the building, nor is it in keeping with the
historic character of the building. Staff asked the applicant if she would be
willing to consider some alternatives that would make better use of the space
on the signboard. Ms. Ayala submitted four possible alternatives.
The application meets the UDO standards for signs and staff
would recommend approval of one of the alternative signs such as No. 1 or No. 2
as illustrated here. Staff would recommend the logo be applied to the inside of
the display window.
Chairman Grundy asked if there were questions of staff.
Ms. Geilker asked if the present sign would be removed and
the new one placed in the same area. Ms. Wensel said it would.
Mr. John Carr said he thought either No. 1 or No. 2 would
work well and Ms. Geilker agreed with Mr. Carr. She also said she thought the
words “Mexican Restaurant” would be more readable if it were not done in all upper
Chairman Grundy said his preference is example No. 2
Mr. Clay Lozier arrived.
Mr. Lozier apologized for being late and asked if the
examples of the sign being displayed were the result of the applicant working
with the sign company, and Ms. Wensel said they were.
Ms. Geilker asked the applicant’s representative,
Mr. Ruben Angel, if Ms. Ayala was comfortable with using either No. 1 or No. 2
and he said they were.
Ms. Wensel stated example No. 2
would more closely reflect the existing sign considering the block text.
Chairman Grundy asked if there were
additional questions or comments and hearing none asked for a motion.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve
HDRC Case No. 07-006LS as amended, indicating No.2 as the preferred sign, and
Ms. Goertz seconded the motion. The vote was 6 – 0 in favor of the motion.
Case No. 07-003PH – Consideration of a request by Jeff Knold for a certificate
of appropriateness for the exterior rehabilitation of 124 South Terrace Avenue, Prospect Heights Historic
Ms. Wensel reviewed the application by stating the two story
duplex at 124 South Terrace was built in 1924 and shows an eclectic and bold
use of styles, such as Dutch Colonial Revival, in the modified side gambrel
roof and dormers, and six-over-one windows; and a Craftsman style porch, with a
stone foundation and massive square columns. Currently, there are two front
doors, appropriate for the multi-family use. The house has been severely
neglected in recent years, and suffers from advanced deterioration of some
exterior elements, such as the roof, soffits, and some windows.
applicant proposes to rehabilitate the structure as a single family home. The
substantial alterations will be:
1. Replacement of the two
existing front doors with a single wood door with sidelights, at the top of the
2. Installation of paired
windows in place of the existing front door (on the left side of the front
3. Replacement of three
front dormer windows with six-over-one double-sash windows;
4. Removal of the center
window on the second story bay of the north façade to allow for the
construction of an interior wall.
5. Possible removal, or
reconfiguration, of the paired windows on the second story of the south façade
to allow for the installation of a bath/shower.
6. Possible removal, or
reconfiguration, of the single window on the ground floor of the south façade
to allow for the installation a bath/shower.
7. Repairs to the stucco
will be in-kind;
8. Repairs and replacement
of the window and door casings will be made in-kind;
9. The chain-link fence
will be removed and replaced with a 4 foot wood picket fence in the same
footprint as the existing fence (subject to consent of abutting property
Mr. Knold indicated that he had changed his
plans regarding item number 5, and that the paired windows on the second floor
of the south façade would remain. Ms. Wensel said that item would be stricken
from the application.
Ms. Wensel, continued, stating the replacement
windows will be Pella double-hung wood replacements to match the existing six-over-one
windows. The two existing front doors will be removed, and a new front door
with sidelights will be installed at the top of the front steps. The door is
wood, with a three-light arch at the top and vertical panels below. The
sidelights are full view.
Only those windows that are no longer
serviceable will be replaced. The windows are wood and will fit into the
existing openings. Replacement windows will match existing windows in the
six-over-one configuration. It is the opinion of staff that the window on the
north side of the second story could be removed in a sensitive manner if the
horizontal belt course and the proportion of the openings are maintained.
The front doors will be moved to allow for a single
front door. The two existing front doors will be repurposed elsewhere in the
house. The replacement door and sidelights complement the Colonial Revival /
Craftsman influences apparent in this house and are appropriate.
The proposed fence meets the UDO standards for
fences in height and materials, and would be appropriate. Final approval of a
front yard fence will be subject to written consent of neighboring property
The application meets the standards for review
and guidelines; therefore staff recommends approval of HDRC case #07-003PH.
Mr. Knold said one of the things he wants to do
is to replace the window at the top of the stairs with one that matches the
small window at the bottom of the stairs. This would result in a small window
on both floors.
Mr. Carr complimented Ms. Wensel on showing what
the one missing window would look like but no elevation drawings have been
included in the packet and he is having difficulty determining all the changes
the applicant is proposing.
Mr. Knold said that the other windows on the
second story are fairly small and asked what Mr. Carr would think if all three
windows were removed and replaced with windows that are similar in size to the
other second story windows. Mr. Knold said a wall is to be installed at the top
of the stairs, but he might be able to add three smaller windows.
Mr. Carr said he is having a very difficult time
with the proposed changes without scaled drawings. He said Ms. Wensel has done
a nice job of trying to help out with the photos. Mr. Carr also said he has the
same issue with the front. He is looking at the floor plan and it doesn’t
really correlate with what the applicant is going to do. He said it does not
appear to be to scale.
Mr. Knold said the floor plan is accurate,
although he does not claim to be an architect. Mr. Knold continued by saying he
can see where elevation drawings would be helpful. Mr. Carr said, as he
recalls, scaled elevation drawings are a requirement so that everything is
Mr. Knold asked when the next meeting of the
commission would be and Ms. Wensel said in two weeks.
Mr. Carr said that this renovation is long
overdue and having been a resident next door for a number of years and had to
watch the demise of the house, he is glad to see Mr. Knold take this project
on. Mr. Carr said his last comment would be on the fence. Whereas a 4-foot
fence is acceptable by UDO standards, he questions if it is a good application
on this property for two reasons:
1. A 4-foot fence is too
high visually and takes away from the grandeur of the structure.
2. The location of the
fence, if it is located where the existing chain link fence is, it would not
have the openness of the current fence. It would be a tremendous disservice to
the upgrades the applicant is making.
Mr. Lozier said he agreed with Mr. Carr’s
Mr. Knold said the justification for the fence
is that there is no backyard on the property. He said he wanted to proceed as
soon as possible with the front door.
Chairman Grundy asked if the commission wanted
to table the application until scaled elevation drawings were submitted.
Ms. Geilker made a motion to split the
application and Ms. Goertz seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 6 – 0
Mr. Carr moved to accept #3, #7 and #8 of the
application. Mr. Lozier seconded the motion which carried with a 6 – 0 vote.
Chairman Grundy asked for a motion to table the
remaining items on the application.
Ms. Goertz made a motion to table the remaining
items until scaled drawings are submitted of the remaining changes and Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 6 – 0 vote.
Mr. Knold asked how accurate the commission
wanted the drawings and Ms. Wensel suggested that the Design Subcommittee could
meet on site to review the drawings and make additional comments. Mr. Knold
said he would call Ms. Wensel when he has the drawings.
Case No. 07-004PH – Consideration of a request by Vern Drottz for a certificate
of appropriateness for the exterior rehabilitation of 38 South Terrace Avenue, Prospect Heights Historic
Ms. Wensel began
by stating this large two-story Free Classic Victorian sits at a prominent
location at the corner of Sunset and Terrace Avenues. There is an alley to the
west and a detached two-car garage. The house features a wrap-around porch with
classical porch columns, two second-story porches, a bay window, and one-over-one
windows. This house was not included in the original resources survey of the
district, but it was probably built around the turn of the 20th
century, when most Queen Anne style homes were built.
applicant proposes to rehabilitate the house by:
the roof with architectural style shingles, and new “K” style seamless hanging
the second story sunroom on the southwest corner;
five windows on the south and west elevations with aluminum clad wood double
hung windows to match the existing windows;
new porch railings around the two new second-story porches;
the existing ground floor door and window on the west elevation with the
existing windows above;
new aluminum clad wood double doors on the west elevation
the garage doors (2) with steel clad painted overhead garage doors
The replacement lap
siding will be cedar or fiber cement siding (such as Hardie board); the repairs
to the porch floor will be pine, to match the existing; and cedar lattice will
be installed around the foundation of the front porch. The existing porch
railing will be repaired, where necessary. The proposed upper porch railings
will be 28” high at the top rail, and 31” high at the newel posts. The top rail
will measure 1 ½” by 7 ½” and the spindles will be 2 ¼” square.
The alterations to this property will be to
restore the structure to a more original appearance. All significant exterior
elements will be preserved.
The enclosed sun porch on the southwest corner
appears to be a more recent addition, and does not appear to contribute
historically or stylistically to the structure; therefore its removal would be
Only windows that cannot be restored will be
replaced. New windows are to be installed to add symmetry and balance to the
building’s fenestration. New door openings will be aligned with other openings.
All of the doors and windows to be moved or added are located in later
additions, and are not original to the house.
Replacement windows will match the existing
windows. The windows are aluminum clad wood and will fit into the existing
windows in size and proportion, and are appropriate.
The application meets the standards for review
and guidelines; therefore staff recommends approval of HDRC case #07-004PH.
Chairman Grundy asked if there were questions or
comments for the applicant.
Ms. Goertz asked if all of the siding was to be
replaced. Mr. Vern Drottz, the applicant, said no just replaced as needed.
Mr. Drottz indicated the atrium door will have
one side fixed and one side will be operable, but it will look just like a double
Ms. Goertz asked if the corner post on the second
story porch is going to dead-end into the window. Mr. Drottz said it actually
will stop by the column.
Mr. Drottz showed a piece of trim work they
found in the attic that they think was part of the original trim. They are
planning to do research to find out how it was used.
Mr. Carr noted the application includes
replacement garage doors but the doors have not been selected. He asked if the
application should be split until the commission can see what they will look
like. Mr. Carr asked if there was a sense of urgency to replace the garage
doors within the next couple of weeks like the last applicant, and Mr. Drottz
said there was not. Mr. Carr then suggested removing the garage doors from this
application and having a new application submitted at a later date for their
Chairman Grundy asked for a motion.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application
as submitted with the exception of the garage doors and Mr. Lozier seconded the
motion. The motion carried 6 – 0.
Case No. 07-010FP: [For HDRC Comment Only] A lot split has been requested for
the property at 415
in the Jewell Historic District. As this request will be heard by the Planning
and Zoning Commission on April 10, 2007, the HDRC is asked comment on its appropriateness.
said this case is for HDRC comment only. A lot split has been requested for the
property at 415 Wilson
Street, in the Jewell
Historic District. The case will be presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission on Tuesday, April 10 and the HDRC has been asked for comments.
Grundy asked if there were questions or comments.
said the lot split is a great idea. In-fill in the historic districts is very appropriate
and this is such a prominent lot that hopefully something could be built to
compliment this district. Mr. Carr said he agreed with Mr. Lozier and that
splitting the lot is the way to make the house located at 415 Wilson cost efficient.
Grundy said he agreed, and Ms. Goertz said she thought another house being
built would help 415 Wilson settle more into the streetscape.
Ms. Geilker said they all agree the lot split is appropriate.
for Design Review: Consideration of a request by Richard Held and Matthew
Wilson for design review of a replacement porch at 242 West Franklin Street,
Dougherty Historic District.
said Richard Held and Matthew Wilson along with Dobbe Dobberstine are here
for feedback on their ideas for the reconstruction of the front porch at 242 West Franklin Street.
said they have been working with Mr. Dobberstine on this project, and they
wanted to share ideas with the commission and to get their comments.
said that they have old pictures that show a porch that was once part of this
home, but that porch was more ornate than Mr. Held and Mr. Wilson have in mind.
They would like to do something more simplistic that would look better with
this style of house.
said they would begin by adding a front porch across the front entry.
said he and Mr. Held and Mr. Wilson want to use simple posts and a simple
design; however, they have found some of the original wrought iron from the
porch in the basement. This wrought iron could be used as part of the porch. He
said Mr. Held, Mr. Wilson, and he are looking for guidance from the commission
so they can take those ideas and estimate the costs before proceeding with
asked if they were planning on only doing the porch across part of the house at
this time or the entire front. Mr. Held said they would start with the entry
porch and continue across the front as funds permit.
said the porch would be approximately 10 feet wide. They are not sure what
material will be used. They are considering wood or some of the HB&G
products. Mr. Carr said the products are good and he wouldn’t hesitate using
asked what the commission thought of the porch that is depicted in the photo.
He doesn’t think this porch really goes with the house. Mr. Held said this
picture is the earliest photo on record and it is the second porch to be part
of the home.
said that after talking with Mr. Dobberstine, they would like the porch to be
squarer and simpler than the one shown in the picture.
said he rebuilt a porch in the 1980’s in Weston, Missouri. He said it was very simple. It was
brick half columns, turned wood posts with a Corinthian capital. He suggested
Mr. Dobberstine, Mr. Held and Mr. Wilson drive to Weston to look at porches in
said she thought a simple porch, using eave brackets that matched those on the
house, would be appropriate. Mr. Dobberstine said that matching eave brackets
would be hard to find because they are more ornate than they appear to be.
moved to accept the meeting summary as submitted and Mr. Lozier
the motion which carried with a 5 – 0 – 1 vote. (Matt Grundy abstained, due to
Mr. Carr asked
if Ms. Wensel had any information about the shed that is being constructed by
Mr. Doug Wilson. Ms. Wensel said she had not, but she would follow up.
Grundy asked about the comment in the minutes regarding the roof replacement on
William Jewell College property that did not have a
certificate of appropriateness. He asked Ms. Wensel to send a letter to the
college about the necessary procedures required prior to work in the historic districts.
asked if 48” front yard fences are allowed in the districts. Ms. Wensel said they
are allowed under the UDO, so staff cannot disallow front yard fences.
Grundy said the only way around the fence dilemma is to change the UDO and the
commission does not have that authority. Ms. Wensel said the only thing the
commission can do is treat each application separately. Chairman Grundy asked
if the commission could deny a fence if they don’t think it is compatible. Ms.
Wensel said they could, if it does not meet the Design Guidelines.
was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.