|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- Demolition and New Construction
- The property is located in the environs of the Hancock Historic
District, National Register of Historic Places and the Oread Historic
District, Register of Historic Kansas Places. The property is also within the environs
of the Jane A. Snow Residence (706 W 12th Street), National
Register of Historic Places and Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
- The proposed project requires review under K.S.A. 75-2724 and Chapter 22
of the Code of the City of Lawrence.
- The City of Lawrence has an agreement with the State Historic
Preservation Officer to conduct State Law Reviews at the local level.
- The Historic Resources Commission conducts the state law reviews and the
Chapter 22 reviews for the City.
|
|
30
|
- The HRC must use the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect
of Projects on Environs to review projects in the environs of National
and Kansas listed properties.
- The HRC must use the guidelines in Chapter 22 for properties located in
the environs of a Lawrence landmark.
|
|
31
|
- In accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the
Effect of Projects on Environs, the standard of evaluation, the HRC
found the proposed project does not meet Standards # 1, #2, #4 and #6,
and will encroach upon, damage or destroy the listed historic properties
and their 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.
- 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.
|
|
32
|
- In accordance with the criteria established in Chapter 22 for the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the standard of
evaluation, the HRC found the proposed project does not meet standards 1
and 9.
- 1. Every reasonable effort shall
be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure, site or object and its
environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose;
- 9. Contemporary design for
alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be
discouraged when such alteration 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.
|
|
33
|
- Per K.S.A. 75-2724 and the Agreement between the Kansas State Historic
Preservation Officer and the City of Lawrence, the applicant may appeal
the decision of the HRC to the City Commission.
- The City Commission must hold a public hearing to determine if there is
a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project. If, based on a consideration of all
relevant factors, 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.
|
|
34
|
- “Environs” means the historic property’s associated surroundings and
the elements or conditions that serve to characterize a specific place,
neighborhood, district, or area, which takes into account all relevant
factors, including the following:
(1) The use of the area;
(2) the significance of the historical property;
(3) the scope of the project;
(4) surrounding buildings, structure, and foliage; and
(5) the topography of the surrounding area.
A project need not be adjacent to a historic property for it to
be in the historic property’s environs.
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
- “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.
|
|
37
|
- Public Hearing
- Determine if there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed
project.
- If the Commission identifies a feasible and prudent alternative to the
proposed project, the process stops here. The applicant may submit a revised
project that reflects the alternative.
There is no time limitation on the submittal of the revised
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.
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
- The applicant is also appealing the determination of the HRC not to
issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
- Chapter 22-504 (B)
- Any person dissatisfied with a determination by the
Commission concerning a certificate of appropriateness may file an
appeal to the City Commission within fifteen (15) days of the date of
notification of that determination. The City Commission must act
on this request within thirty (30) days of receipt and must hold a
public hearing on the appeal.
- Chapter 22-702 (B)
- A matter on appeal to the City Commission shall
be heard de novo.
|
|
40
|
- Certificate of Appropriateness - A certificate issued by the Commission
indicating its approval of plans for alteration, construction, removal,
or demolition of a landmark or of a structure within an historic
district or in the environs thereof, based primarily on design
considerations.
- A CoA is required because the project site is located in the environs of
the Snow Residence.
|
|
41
|
- 22-505 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW.
- (A) An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be
evaluated on a sliding scale, depending upon the designation of the
building, structure, site or object in question. The certificate
shall be evaluated on the following criteria:
- (1) Most careful scrutiny and
consideration shall be given to applications for designated landmarks;
- (2) Slightly less scrutiny
shall be applied to properties designated as key contributory within an
historic district;
- (3) Properties designated contributory
and non-contributory within an historic district shall receive a
decreasing scale of evaluation upon application;
- (4) The least stringent
evaluation is applied to the environs area of a landmark or historic
district. There shall be a presumption that a certificate of
appropriateness should be approved in this category unless the proposed
construction or demolition would significantly encroach on, damage, or
destroy the landmark or historic district. If the Commission denies a
certificate of appropriateness in this category, and the owner(s)
appeals to the City Commission, the burden to affirm the denial shall be
upon the Commission, the City or other interested persons.
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- Public hearing
- Determination as to if the project meets the criteria established in
Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence
- If the Commission determines the project meets the established criteria,
they can make the decision to issue a CoA for the proposed project.
|
|
44
|
- Public Hearing
- Determination based on all relevant factors that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative to the proposed project
- Determination that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm
to the listed properties
- Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness
|
Notes
