Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

TO:

David Corliss

Debbie Van Saun

FROM:

Lynne Braddock Zollner

CC:

Sheila Stogsdill

Date:

April 12, 2007

RE:

April 17, 2007 Agenda Item

 

 

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

Project History

At their meeting on February 15, 2007 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) approved with conditions (3-2) the Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter, located at 944 Kentucky Street (DR-01-06-07). The proposed request included the continued use of the free standing carport and vinyl fence.  The carport was installed without a building permit and was, therefore, not reviewed by the HRC prior to the time of installation. 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. The Oread Historic District is pending National Register of Historic Places listing.  This application (DR-01-06-07) was reviewed in accordance with the protective measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended) that requires the review of projects for their effect on properties listed on the Register of Historic Kansas Places. Specifically, the project was reviewed using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The carport and vinyl fence do not meet the applicable standards and guidelines.

 

The HRC, acting on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Office, found that the SUP does meet the required standards and guidelines but the temporary carport and vinyl fence do not meet the criteria for compatibility to the district.  For this reason, the HRC approved the SUP with the condition that the carport and fence be removed.  The HRC directed the applicant to work with staff to identify structures that will meet the standards and guidelines as well as meeting the applicants needs.

 

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.

 

Planning Staff is of the opinion that the SUP meets the guidelines established for the review. However, the carport and fence do not meet the standards and guidelines.  In addition, Planning Staff believes that there are alternatives to the existing structures that should be explored.  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 applicant wishes to provide a contained sheltered area away from the main entrance of the structure.   The existing shelter was installed without a building permit and HRC review.  If the applicant had applied for a building permit, Staff would have worked with the applicant to identify a structure that would meet the standards and guidelines while meeting the needs of the applicant.  The form and materials of the existing carport and fence are not compatible with the historic district.  Upon notification of the installation of the carport and fence, the Historic Resources Administrator granted temporary approval of the structures to remain until the expiration of the existing UPR.  The applicant was notified that the structures did not meet the required standards and guidelines, would be reviewed by the HRC with the new SUP, and would not be recommended by staff to remain on site. 

 

Staff is of the opinion that the existing carport and fence have an adverse impact on the listed properties.

 

Recommendation

Planning staff is of the opinion that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project and that the project does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.  Feasible and prudent alternatives and all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties would include a replacement structure and fence that are compatible in size, scale, location, and materials 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 a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.