Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning Department
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager |
|
FROM: |
Lynne Braddock Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator |
|
CC: |
Scott McCullough, Director PDS Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Director Planning |
|
Date: |
December 1, 2011 |
|
RE: |
December 6, 2011 Agenda Item
|
Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the December 6th meeting.
I. Project/Item Description. At their meeting on October 27, 2011 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (6-0) the proposed new construction request for 900 New Hampshire Street, a new six story, multi-use structure of approximately 134,775 sf. 900 New Hampshire Street is a vacant lot and is not listed individually or as a contributing structure to any historic district but it is located in the environs of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District and the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. The property is located within the environs of the Shalor Eldridge House (945 Rhode Island Street), Register of Historic Kansas Places. The property is also within the environs of the Social Service League, Lawrence Register of Historic Places and is located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
The applicant is appealing the three determinations made by the HRC.
The appeal is directly related to the HRC’s determinations on the proposed project presented t the HRC on October 27, 2010. The City Commission must consider the same project that the HRC reviewed and did not approve. If the applicant presents an alternative project to the City Commission, the City Commission action must be to refer the revised project to the HRC for review.
II. Project Description/HRC Actions. The applicant is requesting to construct a new six story, multi-use structure of approximately 134,775 sf at 900 New Hampshire Street [Lots 70, 72, 74, 76, and 78 New Hampshire Street]. The proposed structure will have two levels of underground parking, commercial uses including a restaurant and hotel lobby on the ground floor, two levels of apartments, and three levels of extended stay hotel rooms. The structure is 78’ tall at its highest point – the northwest corner of the structure located on the southeast corner of 9th and New Hampshire Streets.
State Preservation Law Review (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended)
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.
At their meeting on October 27, 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.
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 height, size, scale and massing, and materials of the proposed new structure. The proposed uses for the site were not an issue. There was discussion at the HRC hearing that the project could be deferred to allow the applicant to work with Staff and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC – a subcommittee of the HRC) to find design solutions that would meet the overall project goals while meeting the standards and guidelines. The applicant indicated that they would like to keep the project moving and did not desire a deferral.
Certificate of Appropriateness
The HRC also reviewed the project using the Criteria in Chapter 22 because the property is located in the environs of the Social Service League building. There is a presumption in Chapter 22 that a Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued for projects located in the environs of a listed property unless “the proposed construction or demolition would significantly encroach on, damage, or destroy the landmark or historic district.” The HRC found that the proposed project would significantly encroach upon, damage or destroy the environs of one or more listed properties, specifically the Social Service League building, and did not approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The concerns for the HRC were the overall building height of the new construction and size, scale and massing, and materials of the proposed new structure.
Downtown Design Guidelines
The HRC reviewed the project using the Downtown Design Guidelines and determined that the project, as proposed, did not meet the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines as outlined in the staff report. Specifically, the project
· Does not relate to the 2-3 story structure heights in the district and adjacent to the proposed site;
· Does not articulate the pedestrian level storefront with a three part system – bulkhead, display window, transom-- across the building;
· Does not use materials that are compatible with the district – the ceramic tiles are large scale at 2’ X 4’;
· Proposes window types that are suburban;
· Proposes signage that is not pedestrian oriented as outlined in the design guidelines.
III. Discussion
Review of the project under State Preservation Law (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 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. 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 specifically the mixed use; however, the height, size, scale and massing, and materials 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.
Compatible new construction is defined as a structure that is fitting in size, scale and massing, materials, and setbacks. The project team has not worked with the Architectural Review Committee of the HRC or Planning Staff to identify creative methods to reduce the overall scale and massing of the proposed new construction. The proposed new construction does not meet the standards for height, size, scale and massing, or materials. Alternatives that would allow the project to meet the standards would include:
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 provided documentation to “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.” Additional planning that should be required to minimize the harm to the listed properties if the City Commission approves this project includes:
Review of the project for Certificate of Appropriateness
The HRC did not approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project. According to Chapter 22, the applicant may appeal this determination to the City Commission. Under this review, the City Commission is being asked to make a determination of whether the project will damage or encroach upon the environs of the listed properties, specifically the Social Service League building.
Staff Analysis
The Social Service League building was constructed c. 1871 and was listed in the Lawrence Register in 2000 (Ord. 7234). The proposed project is located in Area 2 of the adopted environs for the Social Service League building. Area 2 identifies that this area no longer reflects the residential character of the historic environs and that the area should reflect the development patterns established for the commercial areas of downtown. Proposed construction should meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs, and the Criteria set forth in 22-505. Design elements that are important are scale, massing, site placement, height, directional expression, percentage of building coverage to site, setback, roof shapes, rhythm of openings and sense of entry. Maintaining views to the listed property and maintaining the rhythm and pattern in the environs are the primary focus of review.
Staff is of the opinion the proposed project does not meet the following standards and guidelines:
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs
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.
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.
Chapter 22-505
(9) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations 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.
Review of the project using the Downtown Design Guidelines
The Downtown Conservation Overlay District was established in 2001 with the Downtown Design Guidelines adopted as the development/design standards for the district. In 2009 the City Commission adopted a revised set of Downtown Design Guidelines for the district. Chapter 20-308(g) identifies the appeals process for an applicant when staff and the Historic Resources Commission find that a project does not meet the intent of the adopted development/design standards for a UCO district. The City Commission is being asked to make a determination of whether the proposed project meets the adopted development/design standards.
Staff Analysis
Staff is of the opinion the proposed project does not meet the following design standards:
7.1 New infill buildings should be multistory in height, up to and within appropriate limits.
7.2 The height of a new building must be in acceptable proportion to its width, following patterns and proportions established by existing structures; likewise, story-to-story heights must be appropriate.
7.3 The height of new buildings and additions shall relate to the prevailing heights of nearby buildings. New construction that greatly varies in height from adjacent buildings shall not be permitted.
7.5 A building’s overall proportion (ratio of height to width) must be consistent with existing historic structures.
7.10 If a site is large, the mass of a new building’s facade should be broken into a number of smaller bays to maintain a rhythm similar to surrounding buildings. This is particularly true for storefront level facade elements.
7.14 The composition of an infill facade (that is, the scale, massing, and organization of its constituent parts) shall be similar to the composition of surrounding facades in the block.
10.3 While traditional building materials such as brick, stone, terra cotta, stucco, etc., are the preferred building materials for buildings fronting New Hampshire, Vermont Street, or numbered streets, consideration will be given to other materials.
11.11 Storefront designs should reflect the traditional three-part horizontal layer by providing for a transom area, display windows, and a bulkhead.
11.12 Storefront materials typically consist of wood, metal, steel, or brick. Renovations and/or new construction should reflect these materials.
18.2 The primary focus of signs in Downtown Lawrence shall be pedestrian-oriented in size, scale, and placement, and shall not be designed primarily to attract the notice of vehicular traffic.
18.8 Signs should be subordinate to the building’s facade. The size and scale of the sign shall be in proportion to the size and scale of the street level facade
18.9 Storefront signs should not extend past the storefront upper cornice line. Storefront signs are typically located in the transom area and shall not extend into the storefront opening.
IV. Staff Recommendation
Staff is of the opinion 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 also of the opinion that the project does not meet the applicable standards and guidelines outlined in Chapter 22 and does not meet the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed uses for the site are not an issue. The overall size (including the height), scale and massing, and materials are the areas of concern. The proposed 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 significant cultural resources. It is important to note that the City Commission must review the same project that was reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission. If an alternative design is presented, the City Commission should return the project to the Historic Resources Commission for review.
Staff recommends the City Commission hold a public hearing on the project as it was proposed to the HRC. Staff recommends that the City Commission make the following findings:
1. There are feasible and prudent alternatives to the project reviewed by the HRC;
2. All possible planning has not been undertaken;
3. The project does not meet the Criteria established in Chapter 22 and the Certificate of Appropriateness should be denied; and
4. The project does not meet the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
V. Action Request.