Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

TO:

David Corliss

Debbie Van Saun

FROM:

Lynne Braddock Zollner

CC:

Sheila Stogsdill

Date:

February 14, 2007

RE:

February 20, 2007 Agenda Item

 

 

Please include the following item on the City Commission agenda for consideration at the February 20th meeting.

Project History

At their meeting on January 18, 2007 the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) denied (5-0) the proposed demolition request for the structure located at 1019 Kentucky Street.  At the time of submission of the demolition application, the subject property was  located in the environs of the Charles and Adeline Duncan House (933 Tennessee), the George and Annie Bell House (1008 Ohio), the Dr. Frederick D. Morse House (1044 Tennessee), Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places, and the Colonel James and Eliza Blood House (1015 Tennessee) National Register of Historic Places and Lawrence Register of Historic Places.   The property is now located in the new Oread Historic District, Register of Historic Kansas Places and pending National Register listing.  This application (DR-09-112-06) 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, 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 has provided the structural analysis and cost of repair verses replacement, but has not submitted new construction plans.  The HRC found that the project, as proposed, does not meet the required standards and guidelines because no replacement structure is proposed.  According to the standards and guidelines, a replacement structure would mitigate the loss of the historic structure by preserving the relationships between the structures, landscape features and open space and, as a result, the overall character of the environs of the listed property.

 

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.  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. When it is not feasible to rehabilitate a structure due to the loss of historic fabric, a compatible replacement structure should be constructed to mitigate the adverse impact on the listed property.

 

The deterioration of this building has been ongoing for some time.  The existing condition of the structure is a combination of neglect and normal deterioration of this building type. If this structure were to be rehabilitated, it is questionable as to if the there would be sufficient historic fabric remaining to classify the project as a rehabilitation as opposed to a replacement structure.  For this reason, the State Historic Preservation Office has identified the structure as a potential “fragile building.”  If the extent of the replacement of materials is significant, the project may not be eligible for tax credits. 

 

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 provided a replacement plan in accordance with the standards and guidelines for review. 

 

Recommendation

Planning staff does not recommend the approval of DR-12-110-05, as proposed, 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.  Feasible and prudent alternative and all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties would include 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.