Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning and Development Services

TO:	David Corliss
FROM:	Lynne Braddock Zollner
CC:	Scott McCullough Sheila Stogsdill
Date:	April 15, 2011
RE:	April 19, 2011 Agenda Item

Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the April 19^th meeting.

I. Project/Item Description. At their meeting on February 17, 2011, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (4-0) the proposed demolition and new construction request for the structures located at 711 Connecticut 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 Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District and the North Rhode Island Street Historic Residential District, National Register of Historic Places. The structures are also located in the environs of the Octavius W. McAllaster Residence (724 Rhode Island), Lawrence Register of Historic Places. (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 in the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. All reviews associated with the Lawrence Register of Historic Places were approved.)

This application

DR-12-146-10_Demolition and New Construction

DR-1-4-11_ Site Plan

DR-01-5-11_ Rezoning from RM24 to RM32

DR-2-13-11_Parking Variance to reduce the number of required spaces

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 in 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. The applicant is appealing the decision of the HRC to the City Commission in accordance with the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended).

II. Project Description/History. The proposed project includes the demolition of two structures located at 711 Connecticut Street and the construction of a new 6 unit multi-family structure which includes a site plan, rezoning request from RM24 to RM32 – increasing density allowed, and parking variance to reduce the number of required spaces by 1. (Project location map is attached.) The structures to be demolished are historic, but they are not listed in any register. Historic is defined as 50 years or older. The main structure appears to retain its architectural integrity.

The proposed new construction is a multi-family structure that will have six units. The applicant proposes the 2 story apartment structure with approximately 3900 total square feet of living space. The proposed building will have a footprint of 1964 square feet on a land area of 5850 square feet and include over 1300 square feet of pavement.

The charge of the HRC when reviewing projects for compliance with the State law 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 with associated requests.

At their meeting on February 17, 2011 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.

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.

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 the main structure at 711 Connecticut 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

The City Commission is to make a determination according to 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 with associated requests.) 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.

Staff Analysis

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 of 711 Connecticut Street has been ongoing for some time. The existing condition of the structure is a combination of owner neglect and normal deterioration of these building types. If these structures were to be rehabilitated, it is questionable as to whether there would be sufficient historic fabric remaining to classify the project as a rehabilitation as opposed to replacement structures. The applicant has provided information about the structural condition of the existing structures, including information that was not submitted to the HRC.

The structure located at 711 Connecticut appears to have some structural soundness and retains its architectural integrity. It is possible that the structure could be added to the North Rhode Island Street National Register District as a contributing structure (the district is adjacent to the alley). Alternatives for the demolition of this structure would be the incorporation of the structure into the proposed project. Because staff questions the amount of historic fabric that would need to be replaced if the structures were rehabilitated, staff can support the demolition of this structure; however, it should be noted that staff does not support the increase in density and structure size in this location as a reward for the demolition by neglect.

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. Alternatives to the size, scale and massing of the proposed structure should be evaluated to determine if they can meet the project objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs .

The proposed new construction does not meet the standards for size, scale and massing, zoning, and proposed paving. 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. The overall number of units can be reduced to make a smaller project that would be more compatible with the environs.

Acquire additional land to allow for a refined design to minimize the scale and massing.
Reduction of bedrooms would reduce the amount of parking required and thereby reduce the amount of proposed paving that is not compatible with the environs of the listed properties.
Maintain the existing RM24 zoning

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 not worked with staff or the HRC to find design solutions to minimize the impact of the proposed new structure.

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.
The applicant should refine the design of the structure to reduce the overall scale and massing.
The amount of paving should be reduced.
The density should not be increased for the project. The proposed zoning from RM24 to RM32 does not match the neighborhood plan.
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

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 has not been undertaken. The existing structures have been allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition is the requested action – demolition by neglect. Staff does not support increasing the density and surface coverage of the lot to replace the structure that has been allowed to deteriorate to this state.

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, including the East Lawrence Neighborhood Plan, and protecting the context of our significant cultural resources.

Action Request.

The City Commission shall 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 property.