Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

TO:

David Corliss

Debbie Van Saun

FROM:

Lynne Braddock Zollner

CC:

Sheila Stogsdill

Date:

April 6, 2006

RE:

April 11, 2006 Agenda Item

 

 

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

Project History

At their meeting on March 16, 2006 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied the proposed demolition request for the structure located at 429 Indiana Street.  The subject property is located in the environs of the Pinckney I and Pinckney II Historic Districts, National Register of Historic Places. This application (DR-12-110-05) 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 on the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically, the project was reviewed using the Standards and Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs. The HRC found that the project, as proposed, does not meet the required standards and guidelines.  In addition, the HRC did not believe that the applicant had addressed the concerns of staff and the HRC to mitigate, to the greatest extent possible, the loss of the structure.  The HRC, acting on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Office, typically requires a structural analysis of the structure to be demolished, cost of rehabilitation verses replacement, and new construction plans. 

 

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 the 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 demolish the existing structure and has no current plans for new construction.  The property is currently for sale by the owner.    As noted in the attached staff report, demolition of historic structures is rarely positive for a neighborhood because it destroys the relationships between the structures, landscape features and open space and, as a result, the overall character of the area is diminished.  When possible, staff prefers rehabilitation to retain structures and their relationship to the environs of the listed properties.

 

The deterioration of this building has been ongoing for some time.  Staff is of the opinion that the existing condition of the structure is a combination of owner neglect and normal deterioration of this building type. The deterioration of this structure due to owner neglect was preventable. While the deferred maintenance on this building has contributed to the poor condition of this building, it is just one of the contributors.

 

Staff always prefers rehabilitation, and without proper structural analysis, staff is unable to make a determination as to the feasibility of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation would allow for the retention of the relationship of structures and open space within the environs of the listed properties. If demolition is approved without proper documentation, it removes the opportunity for a future owner to rehabilitate the existing structure. There is a direct line of sight between this property the Pinckney II Historic District, National Register of Historic Places.

 

Staff is of the opinion that the demolition of this structure will have an adverse impact on the listed properties because the applicant has not sufficiently exhausted all rehabilitation avenues, nor provided a replacement plan. 

 

 

Recommendation

Planning staff does not recommend the approval of DR-12-110-05, as proposed, 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.  All possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties would include a structural evaluation of the existing structure and a replacement plan.

 

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.