Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning Department
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager |
|
FROM: |
Planning Staff |
|
CC: |
Cynthia Wagner, Assistant City Manager Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager |
|
Date: |
April 18, 2012 |
|
RE: |
April 24, 2012 Agenda Item
|
Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the April 24th meeting.
I. Project/Item Description. At their meeting on February 16, 2012, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (7-0) the proposed new construction request for 900 New Hampshire Street, a six story, multi-use structure of approximately 126,800 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 the following:
(1) Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places;
(2) the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District, National Register of Historic Places;
(3) the Shalor Eldridge House (945 Rhode Island Street), Register of Historic Kansas Places; and
(4) the Social Service League, Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The property is also located in the Downtown Conservation Overlay District.
The applicant is appealing two determinations made by the HRC.
The appeal is directly related to the HRC’s determinations on the proposed project presented to the HRC on February 16, 2012. 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 six story, multi-use structure at 900 New Hampshire Street [Lots 70, 72, 74, 76, and 78 New Hampshire Street]. The proposed project is a multi-story mixed use building that includes two levels of underground parking, TownePlace Marriot extended stay hotel (84 units), residential apartments (21 units), a restaurant, and a ground floor retail space. The structure will be approximately 126,831 square feet with the hotel occupying part of the first floor, the second and third floors, and part of the fourth floor. The apartments are limited to the fifth floor and part of the fourth floor. The restaurant will be located on the sixth floor. The proposed structure will be concrete and steel framed with materials that include stone, brick, and metal panels. The height of the structure at the corner of 9th and New Hampshire Streets will be 73’6”. The proposed structure incorporates varying numbers of stories to address transitioning from New Hampshire Street and the commercial district to the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District. The height at the alley is 40’ and the height at the Arts Center is 55’. Overhead doors are located on the north elevation to allow for access to the loading dock and the underground parking. Storefront systems are located on the north and west elevations. Ground floor fenestration also includes the entrance to the building and to the hotel lobby.
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. 900 New Hampshire Street is located in the environs of:
(1) Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places;
Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District is not adjacent to the proposed project site but is approximately 230 feet from the proposed project site. The district is characterized by two story, two part commercial masonry structures that have a three part commercial storefront system at the ground level. Storefront widths are typically 25 to 50 feet and have a significant amount of glazing. The majority of structures in the district have no setback from the front property line and have party wall construction.
(2) the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District, National Register of Historic Places; and
The North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District is located directly across the adjacent alley to the proposed project site. The district is characterized by one and two story frame and masonry structures located on lots 50’ by 117’. The typical lot has front, rear, and side yard setbacks creating a green space surrounding the principal structure on the lot.
(3) the Shalor Eldridge House (945 Rhode Island Street), Register of Historic Kansas Places.
The Shalor Eldridge House is listed individually in the Register of Historic Kansas Places and as a contributing structure to the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District. The proposed project site is approximately 300 feet from the Shalor Eldridge House. The Shalor Eldridge House’s environs includes the new commercial construction in the 900 block of New Hampshire Street, the typical commercial structures of Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, as well as the residential characteristics of the North Rhode Island Street Residential Historic District.
The HRC must evaluate the existing environs for each property 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 February 16, 2012 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:
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 of the proposed new structure. The HRC was of the opinion that the proposed project is too large for the proposed site. The proposed uses for the site were not an issue.
Certificate of Appropriateness
The HRC reviewed the project using the Criteria in Chapter 22 because the property is located in the environs of the Social Service League building. The Social Service League building is a two story, stone structure with an 1888 addition. In 1947, a concrete block building was added to the property. The Social Service League property is located directly across the alley from the proposed project site. 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 of the proposed new structure.
Downtown Design Guidelines
The HRC also reviewed the project using the Downtown Design Guidelines and determined that the project, as proposed, meets the overall intent of the Downtown 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 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 worked 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. While the redesign is better than the previous design with respect to these issues, the proposed new construction does not meet the standards for height, size, scale and massing. Alternatives that would allow the project to meet the standards would include:
In addition to the above alternatives that would allow the proposed project to meet the applicable standards, staff is of the opinion that there are other projects that would be alternatives for the site that could meet the standards and guidelines. Because the site is vacant, the alternatives to the proposed project include but are not limited to:
· A smaller project that would be similar in scale and massing to the Lawrence Arts Center building.
Technical issues: It is technically feasible to design and build a structure of similar scale and massing to the Arts Center building. The Arts Center is an example of a technically feasible structure for this location.
Design issues: A building that is similar in size, including height, scale and massing to the Arts Center is a compatible alternative to the proposed structure. The design of a three story building would be a transition building from the commercial downtown to the residential area of one and two story structures. The height of a structure is an important design element.
The project’s relationship to the community-wide plan: The Comprehensive Downtown Plan (1984) calls for this location to be public parking. Since the adoption of the plan, the Downtown Historic District and the North Rhode Island Residential Historic District were listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Downtown Conservation Overlay District was adopted in 2001 with Downtown Design Guidelines adopted in 2001 and 2008. The Guidelines call for the compatibility of new construction and do not include a future land use map.
Economic issues: A smaller structure with fewer amenities (parking and pool) would be less expensive to construct. There are economically viable two and three story buildings in Downtown Lawrence.
· A project with a fewer uses that would require a smaller building.
Technical issues: It is technically possible to construct a two or three story structure that would house ground floor retail and upper floor office or residential. A structure that does not provide parking is possible because there is no required parking in the CD District.
Design issues: Height, scale and mass of a two or three story structure is compatible with the transition of the downtown structures to the residential type structures to the east.
The project’s relationship to the community-wide plan: The Downtown Urban Design Concept Plan is incorporated into the Downtown Design Guidelines. This plan promotes urban development patterns on Vermont and New Hampshire Streets that complements Massachusetts Street. It also defines a hierarchy of scale and massing that transitions from Massachusetts Street to Rhode Island Street.
Economic issues: The reduction of uses for the proposed construction at this site will reduce the initial cost of construction. A project without the costs associated with the underground parking is possible.
Possible relevant factors for reviewing the project under K.S.A. 75-2724, as amended
(1) Character of the neighborhood: The project site is located in the Downtown Commercial District (CD District) and is adjacent to an area of commercial uses in residential structures and a medium density residential district. The character of the neighborhood to the west, north and south of the property is commercial while the characteristics (building form and setbacks) of the neighborhood to the east are residential.
(2) Zoning: The zoning for the site is CD (Downtown Commercial) District. The zoning directly to the east is CS (Commercial Strip) District.
(3) Uses of nearby properties: Community use of the Arts Center is to the south; commercial, office and residential uses are to the west; parking and office uses are to the north; and commercial and residential uses are to the east.
(4) Suitability of the property for the proposed use: the proposed uses are appropriate for the commercial district and as a transition to the residential neighborhood. The combination of uses to include parking, hotel, retail and residential may make the uses too intense for the site.
(5) Extent to which the proposed use would detrimentally affect nearby property: the intensity of uses on the site may have a detrimental effect to nearby property in the addition of lighting, and noise. The shadows created by the height of the proposed structure may also detrimentally affect the property directly across the alley to the east.
(6) The property has been vacant since demolition of the structures in preparation for the Downtown 2000 project that identified the site as a two story building with retail and office uses.
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.” The documentation submitted by the applicant has only been for the proposed project and does not include alternative project solutions and why they are not feasible.
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 two-story 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.
The proposed project does not meet the following standards and guidelines due to its size, scale and massing:
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.
Compatible new construction is a structure that is fitting in size, scale and massing, materials, and setbacks. The size, scale and massing of the structure are not consistent with the typical historic structures in the commercial area. The structures in downtown have 25’ to 50’ storefronts with a zero front and side setback. The proposed structure has a setback from the adjacent Arts Center building and has a larger storefront area on both the New Hampshire Street elevation and the 9th Street elevation. The size of the structure creates a mass that is not characteristic of the downtown area. The applicant has utilized architectural techniques to try to address the large scale of the structure. While the environs definition identifies that there should be a commercial structure on this site, the combination of the size and massing of the proposed structure create a structure that dominates the Social Service League building and environs.
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. The proposed uses for the site are not an issue. The intensity of the uses for the site may be an issue. The overall size (including the height), scale and massing 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; and
3. The project does not meet the Criteria established in Chapter 22 and the Certificate of Appropriateness should be denied;
V. Action Request.