ITEM NO. 8: DR-01-06-07 944 Kentucky Street; Special Use Permit; Certified Local Government Review. The property is listed as a non-contributing structure to the Oread Historic District, Register of Historic Kansas Places, and is located in the environs of the Charles and Adeline Duncan House (933 Tennessee), the Colonel James and Eliza Blood House (1015 Tennessee), the Benedict House (923 Tennessee), and Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. Submitted by James Dunn, the property owner of record.
Staff presented photographs of the main structure, the carport, and the fence surrounding the carport.
Loring Henderson, the Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter, was present. He said the addition of the carport was the result of City Commission’s discussion with the Community Shelter. Both bodies were interested in developing the rear of the main structure in order to move the congregation area for Community Shelter patrons from the front of the property to the rear. The shelter bought the structures because they were a reasonable price; the Oread neighborhood donated $250 toward the cost.
Mr. Henderson said he did mention the project a couple of times to Neighborhood Resources. Because the property was noncontributing to the historic district, Mr. Henderson felt it was difficult to determine how to build something “contributing” to the neighborhood. He concluded the carport has been a real asset since it was installed in May, especially in warm weather.
Commissioner Sizemore asked if the HRC discussed the carport and fence addition at the last Special Use Permit (SUP) application about one year ago. Mr. Henderson clarified the specific structures were not discussed. He also said the fence and carport were temporary structures because he is constantly looking for a newer, bigger, and better Shelter. When the shelter changes locations, the structure will move with the shelter, be discarded, or sold.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff confirmed the current application will be a new SUP. In the existing SUP, staff approved the carport and fence as temporary structures. By definition, an SUP must be reviewed for its impact on the listed properties, which is why the property is now being considered by the HRC. Staff confirmed the structures were already in place before staff could work with applicant. The full Commission is reviewing the SUP application because the structures do not meet the guidelines. Staff noted the construction of a carport does require a building permit, while the fence does not.
Commissioner Antle said this was a situation in which a structure does not meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; however the property is in an area that has many structures that do not meet Standards. This structure does meet a neighborhood need, has been funded in part by the neighborhood, and has, in concept, been endorsed by the City Commission.
Commissioner Sizemore asked if the applicant had considered removing the carport and fence. Mr. Henderson replied he is not considering removing the structures and will not replace them if they have to be removed.
The Commission asked staff to clarify the basis for staff’s recommendation that the fence be removed. Ms. Zollner explained the fence is not compatible in regard to materials and design.
Commissioner Sizemore said he does not see how the HRC has any option other than saying that these structures do not meet the intent of the Standards.
Commissioner Meyer said the purpose of the SUP is for the shelter itself. She also recalled other applications, specifically a residential application in which the applicant spent money and made alterations, but the Commission did not require the removal of the noncompliant structure. Commissioner Meyer was of the opinion that the SUP does not encroach upon the listed properties.
Staff confirmed that with an SUP application the use and site plan are both reviewed. Had the applicant applied for a building permit, staff would not have recommended approval.
Commissioner Antle said he could follow the argument that the carport and fence are part of the SUP application. Commissioner Veatch reminded the Commissioners that the carport and fence were constructed without a building permit.
Staff confirmed that the carport and fence were reviewed only after their installation. Staff approved the structures as temporary features until the UPR expired at the end of March.
Commissioner Sizemore said he would be in favor of approval per staff conditions, which would allow the applicant to appeal the decision to the City Commission.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Sizemore, second by Veatch, to approve the Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review for a Special Use Permit at the property located at 944 Kentucky Street as presented, based on a determination that it will not encroach upon, damage or destroy any listed property or its environs with the following conditions:
1. The applicant remove the noncompliant fence and carport;
2. If a structure allowing for outside shelter is to be provided, the applicant submit drawings of a compliant structure(s) to the Historic Resources Commission prior to their installation for approval;
3. This recommendation is given with the understanding that the City Commission must approve the associated Special Use Permit. Approval of this request by staff or the HRC does not guarantee the City Commission will approve the associated Special Use Permit;
4. The applicant shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Special Use Permit as approved by the City Commission.
Motioned carried 3-2, with Antle and Meyer in opposition.