PLANNING	MEMO
OFFICE

TO:      Mike Wildgen, City Manager                 

FROM:  Planning Staff

DATE:  October 21, 2004

SUBJECT: Appeal of DR-08-71-04: 944 Massachusetts Street, Storefront Remodel

Introduction/History

At their meeting on September 16, 2004 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied the proposed storefront remodel to the structure located at 944 Massachusetts Street.  This application (DR-08-71-04) was reviewed in accordance with three separate regulations. (Please see the attached Staff Report for the review standards associated with each type of review.)  The subject property is located in Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.  The Protective Measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended) requires the review of projects for their effect on properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence requires a Certificate of Appropriateness before specified actions affecting the exterior architectural appearance of any landmark or property within an historic district or their environs. The subject property is within the environs of the Hanna Building located at 933 Massachusetts Street and the Shalor Eldridge House located at 945 Rhode Island Street.  The City of Lawrence also adopted Ordinance No. 7395 establishing a Downtown Conservation Overlay District with Design Guidelines.  The subject property is within the boundaries of this district and subject to the associated review.

The HRC found that the project, as proposed, does not meet the required standards and guidelines for each of the applicable regulations. 

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

Discussion

The City Commission is asked 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 property associated with the project has been identified and undertaken.

Planning Staff is of the opinion that the project, as proposed, does not meet the guidelines established for each type of review.  In addition, Planning Staff believes that there are alternatives to the proposed project that should be explored.  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.

The applicant wishes to add an area to his existing business that will allow for patrons to smoke.  Planning Staff is of the opinion that there are design alternatives to the removal of the glazing on the main/front façade of the structure and removal of the existing ceiling.  The presence of storefronts along the building line of Massachusetts Street is a significant and character-defining feature of the Historic District, the environs of locally listed properties, and the overall character that the Downtown Designs are intended to help preserve.  While the applicant will leave elements of the existing storefront, the removal of the glazing and the creation of a “courtyard” area will significantly alter the existing streetscape for this area of Massachusetts. 

Recommendation

Planning staff does not recommend the approval of DR-08-71-04 and is of the opinion that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project and that the project does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.

Action

Planning staff recommends that the City Commission 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.