Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

TO:	David Corliss Debbie Van Saun
FROM:	Lynne Braddock Zollner
CC:	Sheila Stogsdill
Date:	October 11, 2006
RE:	October 17, 2006 Agenda Item Appeal of DR-06-63-06

Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the October 17^th meeting.

Introduction/History

At their meeting on September 21, 2006 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied the proposed rezoning for the structure located at 917 Delaware Street.  This application (DR-06-63-06) was reviewed in accordance with the protective measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended) which requires the review of projects for their effect on properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Register of Historic Kansas Places. The subject property is within the environs of the East Lawrence Industrial District, Register of Historic Kansas Places.

The HRC found that the project, as proposed, does not meet the required standards and guidelines for rezoning as established by the standards and guidelines. 

ZONING Recommended Maintain zoning that continues the histories land use in the environs of a listed property. When rezoning is required within the environs of a listed property, the impact of the rezoning should be considered and steps taken to mitigate adverse effects. When replatting is necessary, all subsequent new construction should be compatible with the environs in relationship to the setbacks, form, size, scale massing, etc.

Not Recommended Rezoning to allow development that is incompatible and/or inconsistent with the character of the environs. Speculative or spot zoning without a well-defined use for the property that is compatible with the environs. Any rezoning without design documents indicating the compatibility of the proposed new use, addition, and/or infill construction. Replatting to facilitate new construction that is incompatible and/or inconsistent with the character of the environs of a listed property.

The applicant is appealing the decision of the HRC to the City Commission in accordance with the associated regulations.

Discussion

The City Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to determine if there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project.  If no feasible and prudent alternative is available, the City Commission shall determine if all possible planning to minimize the harm to the listed property associated with the project has been identified and undertaken.

According to the K.A.R. 118-3-1, Feasible and prudent alternative means an alternative solution that can be reasonable accomplished and that is sensible or realistic. Factors that shall be considered when determining whether or not a feasible and prudent alternative exists include the following:

(1) Technical issues;

(2) design issues;

(3) the project’s relationship to the community-wide plan, if any; and

(4) economic issues.

The Standards and guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs 1998 Edition recommend when rezoning is required within the environs of a listed property, the impact of the rezoning should be considered and steps taken to mitigate adverse effects.  This can be done in a mitigation document that identifies each adverse impact and the steps to be taken by the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects.  The Standards and guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs 1998 Edition does not recommend any rezoning without design documents indicating the compatibility of the proposed new use, addition, and/or infill construction. This can be done in a design guidelines document that outlines existing and future use of the property and defines guidelines for new construction on the site.

Recommendation

If the City Commission determines that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project, staff recommends that a mitigation and design guidelines document be submitted by the applicant and approved by the HRC to provide for “all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.”

Action

Planning staff recommends that the City Commission hold a public hearing and make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program includes/does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property.