Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

TO:	David Corliss
FROM:	Lynne Braddock Zollner
CC:	Scott McCullough Sheila Stogsdill
Date:	October 5, 2011
RE:	October 11, 2011 Agenda Item

Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the October 11^th meeting.

I. Project/Item Description.  At their meeting on September 15, 2011 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (5-2) the proposed relocation and new construction request for the structure located at 1043 Indiana Street.  1043 Indiana Street is not listed individually or as a contributing structure to any historic district but it is located in the environs of the Oread Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The north end of the property is also within the environs of the Michael D. Greenlee House, National Register of Historic Places. This application (DR-4-49-11) 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 Officer 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 K.S.A. 75-2724, as amended.

II. Project Description/History.  The applicant is requesting to relocate the existing historic structure located at 1043 Indiana Street [Lots 11 & 12, Block 13, Lane’s Second Addition] to the north end of the vacant lots [Lots 7 – 10, Block 13, Lane’s Second Addition] and incorporate the structure into a design of a 50 unit Multi Dwelling Unit Apartment Complex of approximately 128,285 total square feet: 55,945 square feet of underground parking and 72,340 square feet of living space, including storage and mechanical. Historic is defined as 50 years or older.  The property is not listed in any register but the structure located at 1043 Indiana Street has been determined by the State Historic Preservation Office to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

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 evaluated the proposed relocation of the existing structure and the proposed new construction.

At their meeting on September 15, 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.

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.

The main items of concern for the HRC were the proposed relocation of 1043 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 has also submitted a rezoning application and a preliminary development plan for this project.  The HRC reviewed the rezoning application in accordance with the protective measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended) and found that the proposed zoning, RM-32, does not damage or encroach upon any listed property.  The preliminary development plan is the proposed project reviewed as DR-4-49-11.  The Planning Commission approved both of these items (8-0) at their meeting on August 24, 2011.

III.  Discussion

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.  The determination that the project will damage or encroach upon the environs of the listed properties was made by the HRC and stands.  Because the HRC has made this determination on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the project cannot 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 proposed relocation of the existing structure and the construction of a 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.

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 relocation of 1043 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.

The applicant wishes to relocate the existing structure to the north end of the project site. As noted in the HRC staff report, this proposed relocation of the structure is not recommended and should be avoided according to the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs. The proposed relocation of this historic structure destroys the relationships between structures, landscape features and open space and, as a result, the overall character of the area is diminished.  Staff recommends the rehabilitation of structure at its current location to retain the relationship to the environs of the listed properties.

The deterioration of 1043 Indiana Street has been ongoing for some time.  The existing condition of the structure is a combination of neglect and normal deterioration.  While rehabilitation of this structure would include repair and some replacement of the foundation, the overall condition of the structure is fair and appears to be structurally sound. The structure retains its architectural integrity and, as noted above, is eligible for listing in National Register of Historic Places.  It is not necessary to move the structure to rehabilitate the structure. The relocation of this structure is proposed to achieve the new construction project goals.  Alternatives to the relocation of this structure would be to leave the structure on its original site and incorporate the structure into the proposed project at this location. The architecture of the structure could make a strong statement for the new construction and help the new construction emphasize the importance of the historic character of the area. 

Compatible new construction is defined as a structure that is fitting in size, scale and massing, materials, and setbacks. The project team has worked diligently with the Architectural Review Committee of the HRC and Planning Staff to identify creative methods to reduce the overall scale and massing of the proposed new construction.  However, 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.
• Consider multiple structures to meet the density goals of the project.  Multiple structures on the lots will continue neighborhood patterns and help with the size, scale and massing issues.
• Continue to refine the design with a reduction in bulk and the utilization of architectural techniques to minimize the scale and massing.

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 try to minimize some of its impacts on the neighborhood.  Additional planning that should be required to minimize the harm to the listed properties if the City Commission approves this project includes:

• Complete documentation of the existing structure before it is moved.  This should be done by a professional and should include scaled drawings and photographs with particular attention paid to the relationship of the structure to the site.
• The overall bulk of the new structure should be reduced.
• The applicant should refine the design of the structure to reduce the overall scale and massing.
• Complete construction documents should be submitted and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator before the release of the building permits.

The rezoning and the preliminary development plan for the subject property are separate items for the City Commission to consider.  The outcome of the public hearing and determination on feasible and prudent alternatives and all possible planning may affect the preliminary development plan.

IV.  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 has not been undertaken. 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.

V.  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/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 properties.