Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

TO:

David Corliss

FROM:

Lynne Braddock Zollner

CC:

Scott McCullough

Sheila Stogsdill

Date:

November 5, 2007

RE:

November 13, 2007 Agenda Item

 

 

Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the November 13th meeting.

 

I. Project/Item Description.  At their meeting on September 20, 2007 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (7-0) the proposed demolition and new construction request for the structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street.  At the time of the project submission, the subject properties were not listed individually or as contributing structures to any historic district but they were located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and the Oread Historic District, Register of Historic Kansas Places. (The Oread Historic District is now listed in the National Register of Historic Places.) The property is also within the environs of the Jane A. Snow Residence, National Register of Historic Places and Lawrence Register of Historic Places. This application (DR-07-93-07) 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 National Register of Historic Places and the Register of Historic Kansas Places. Specifically, the project was reviewed using the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs (see attached). The City of Lawrence has an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office for the Lawrence Historic Resources Commission to conduct these reviews at the local level. This application was also reviewed using the criteria established in Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence for a property located within the environs (250 feet) of a Landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

 

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

 

 

II. Project Description/History.  The proposed project will include the demolition of structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street and the construction of a new multi-story, mixed use structure.  (Project location map is attached.)  The proposed project includes the demolition of five structures; four of the structures are historic (1144 and 1142 Indiana Street and 618 and 620 W 12th Street), but they are not listed on any register.  Historic is defined as 50 years or older.  All four of the historic structures appear on the 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. (Attached)  The map indicates that 1144 Indiana has already been converted from a dwelling unit to three stores (commercial).  Of the four historic structures, only one – 1142 Indiana Street – appears to retain its architectural integrity.  The other three historic structures have had significant alterations that have compromised their architectural integrity; however, they continue to have visibly significant features and do have some social significance.

 

The proposed new construction is a multi-story, multi-use structure that will house a hotel, restaurant and bar, and possible retail, extended stay, and condominiums. The plans reviewed by the HRC detailed a single structure approximately 100 feet tall and with a building footprint of 93,000 square feet.

 

The charge of the HRC when reviewing projects for compliance with the State law and for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is focused. For this project, they evaluated the project for its impact on the environs (context) of the listed properties.  To do this, they must evaluate the existing environs and using the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs they must evaluate the project as described by the applicant.  For this project, the HRC had to evaluate the demolition requests and the proposed new construction.

 

At their meeting on September 20, 2007 the HRC found that the proposed project did not meet the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs.  Specifically, the HRC found that the proposed project does not meet the following standards.

1.  The character of a historic property’s environs should be retained and preserved.  The removal or alteration of distinctive buildings, structures, landscape features, spatial relationships, etc. that characterize the environs should be avoided.

 

2.  The environs of a property should be used as it has historically been used or allow the inclusion of new uses that require minimal change to the environs’ distinctive materials, features, and spatial relationships.

 

4.  Demolition of character-defining buildings, structures, landscape features, etc. in a historic property’s environs should be avoided.  When the severity of deterioration requires removal within the environs, compatible reconstruction shall occur.

 

6.       New additions, exterior alterations, infill construction, or related new construction should not destroy character-defining features or spatial relationships that characterize the environs of a property.  The new work shall be compatible with the historic materials, character-defining features, size, scale and proportion, and massing of the environs.

 

In addition, the HRC found that the size, scale and massing of the proposed new construction was of such significance that it did not meet the criteria established in Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence.  Specifically,

 

1.  Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, site or object and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose;

 

9.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alteration and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environs. 

The HRC requested that the applicant continue to work with staff and the HRC or Architectural Review Committee (a sub-committee of the HRC) to refine the proposal so that it would meet the overall objectives of the applicant and meet the overall intent of the standards and guidelines.  The main items of concern for the HRC were the demolition of 1142 Indiana Street and the size, scale and massing of the proposed new structure.  The HRC indicated that if these items could be satisfactorily addressed, the project could meet the standards and guidelines and be approved.  The applicant did not wish to alter the design of the project and requested the HRC make a determination so that the project could move forward to the City Commission for consideration.

 

Discussion

There are two separate reviews being appealed to the City Commission: (1) the review of the project under K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended, and (2) the review of the project in accordance with Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence.

 

(1) Review of the project under K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended

The City Commission is not being asked to make a determination of whether the project will damage or encroach upon the environs of the listed properties.  That determination was made by the HRC and stands.  Because the HRC has made this determination on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Office, the project can not proceed until the governing body, in this case the City Commission, has made a determination, based on a consideration of all relevant factors, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties. The City Commission is required to hold a public hearing to determine if there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project. (The project includes the demolition of the existing structures and the proposed new structure.) If no feasible and prudent alternative is available, the City Commission shall determine if all possible planning to minimize the harm to the listed properties 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.

 

“Program includes all possible planning” means that the written evidence and materials submitted by the applicant clearly identify all alternative solutions that have been investigated, compare the differences among the alternative solutions and their effects, and describe mitigation measures proposed by the project proponent that address an adverse effect determination from the HRC.

(2) Review of the project under Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence

For this review, the City Commission is being asked to overturn the HRC decision - the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness – and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project so that demolition and building permits can be obtained. The City Commission will use the same review criteria as used by the HRC.  Specifically, Section 22-505 of the Code of the City of Lawrence indicates that the least stringent standard of evaluation be applied to properties within the environs of listed properties:

 

4.  The least stringent evaluation is applied to noncontributory properties and the environs area of a landmark or historic district.  There shall be a presumption that a certificate of appropriateness shall be approved in this category unless the proposed construction or demolition would significantly encroach on, damage, or destroy the landmark or historic district.  If the Commission denies a certificate of appropriateness in this category, and the owner(s) appeals to the City Commission, the burden to affirm the denial shall be upon the commission, the City or other interested persons. 

 

For projects requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness, the general standards and design criteria listed in Section 22-505 of the Code of the City of Lawrence are used.  Therefore, the following standards apply to the proposed project:

 

1.  Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, site or object and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose;

 

2.  The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed.  The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature should be avoided when possible;

 

3.  All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.  Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged;

 

4.  Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment.  These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected;

 

5.  Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a building, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity;

 

6.  Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather then replaced, whenever possible.  In the event replacement is necessary, the new materials should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conceptual designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures; 

 

7.  The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible.  Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building material shall not be undertaken;

 

8.  Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, and project;

 

9.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alteration and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environs. 

 

Staff Analysis

Historic Resources Staff is of the opinion that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project and that there is additional planning that should be undertaken to minimize the harm to the listed properties.  Staff is supportive of the overall concept of the project including the use, however the demolition of 1142 Indiana Street and the size, scale and massing of the proposed structure have alternatives that should be evaluated to determine if they can meet the project objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs and the criteria established in Chapter 22.

 

The applicant wishes to demolish the existing structures on the project site. As noted in the HRC staff report, demolition of historic structures is rarely positive for a neighborhood because it destroys the relationships between the structures, landscape features and open space and, as a result, the overall character of the area is diminished.  When possible, staff prefers rehabilitation to retain structures and their relationship to the environs of the listed properties. When it is not feasible to rehabilitate a structure due to the loss of historic fabric, a compatible replacement structure should be constructed to mitigate the adverse impact on the listed property. Compatible is defined as a structure that is fitting in size, scale and massing, materials, and setbacks.

 

The deterioration and alteration of 1140 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street has been ongoing for some time.  The existing condition of the structure is a combination of neglect and normal deterioration of these building types. If these structures were to be rehabilitated, it is questionable as to if the there would be sufficient historic fabric remaining to classify the project as a rehabilitation as opposed to replacement structures. The applicant has not provided information about the structural condition of the existing structures because the proposed project is based on the desire for the new multi-use structure, not the condition of the existing structures.

 

The historic structure located at 1142 Indiana appears to be structurally sound, retains its architectural integrity, and would be eligible for listing as a contributing structure to a historic district for the Lawrence, Kansas, and National Register of Historic Places.  The demolition of this structure is not warranted and does not meet the standards for review.  Alternatives for the demolition of this structure would be the incorporation of the structure into the proposed project or moving the structure to a compatible location. 

 

The proposed new construction does not meet the standards for size, scale and massing.  Alternatives that would allow the project to meet the standards would include:

 

  • Reduce the size of the new structure.

1.      The overall space needs of the project should be analyzed to evaluate support/optional spaces that could be reduced to allow for a smaller structure.

2.      Financial analysis of size/space needs to make the project successful should be evaluated to identify possible off-site additions to the project.  For example, extended stay or condominium uses could be housed in a rehabilitated Oread Apartments, 1142 Indiana, etc.

3.      Re-evaluate the space needs to cover the costs of the proposed public improvements.

  • Acquire additional land to allow for a refined design with a reduction in height and the utilization of architectural techniques to minimize the scale and massing.

 

In addition, this project is not required and a feasible and prudent alternative may be to allow for the continued existence and use of the existing structures and businesses until such time a project that can achieve a developer’s goals and objectives without damaging and destroying the context of significant historic properties can be developed.

 

State law also requires the City Commission to make a determination that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm to the listed properties.  The applicant has made adjustments in the design of the structure to minimize some of its impacts on the neighborhood.  For example, the parking garage doors were adjusted so that lights will not shine into the residential structures across the street.  Street improvements are identified with this project and include a landscaped median on Oread Avenue. It should be noted that the proposed street improvements do not mitigate the impact of the project on the listed properties.  The landscaped median does, however, help to mitigate the redirection of Oread Avenue.  Oread Avenue was the first platted diagonal street in Lawrence and remained the only street of this type until after c. 1920.

 

Additional planning that should be required to minimize the harm to the listed properties should the City Commission approve this project include:

  • Complete documentation of all structures to be demolished.  This should be done by a professional and should include scaled drawings and photographs.
  • 1142 Indiana Street should be moved rather than demolished.  A reasonable amount of time should be allowed to investigate the removal of this structure.  If no means or opportunity exists after a reasonable amount of time, this provision could be removed.
  • The overall height of the structure should be reduced.
  • The applicant should refine the design of the structure to reduce the overall scale and massing.
  • An approved and designated pedestrian path should be designed to allow for ease of pedestrian traffic during the construction process.
  • Complete construction documents should be submitted and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator before the release of the demolition permits.  This will help to ensure that a replacement structure will be constructed on the site of the demolished structures. 

 

Staff Recommendation

Historic Resources staff recommends the City Commission hold a public hearing and make the determination that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project and that all planning to minimize harm to the environs of the listed properties had not been undertaken. In addition, staff does not recommend the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project as proposed.  Staff is of the opinion that the project can be redesigned to meet the goals and objectives of the applicant while meeting the intent of the applicable standards and guidelines and protecting the context of these significant cultural resources.

 

Action Request. 

 

A.     The City Commission shall 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.

B.     The City Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a determination to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.