Memorandum
City of
TO: |
David Corliss |
FROM: |
Lynne Braddock
Zollner |
CC: |
Sheila Stogsdill |
Date: |
June 4, 2008 |
RE: |
June 10, 2008 Agenda
Item |
Please include the following item on the City Commission
agenda for consideration at the June 10th meeting.
I. Project/Item Description.
At their meeting on April 17,
2008 the Historic Resources Commission (
The applicant is appealing
the decision of the
II. Project Description/History. The proposed project is the demolition of the
structure located at
There is no proposed new construction for the subject property.
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. To do this, they must evaluate the existing
environs and using the Standards and
Guidelines for Evaluating the Effect of Projects on Environs they must
evaluate the project as described by the applicant. For this project, the HRC had to evaluate the
demolition request and the fact that there is no proposed new construction.
At their meeting on April 17, 2008 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 and Guidelines.
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.
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.
DEMOLITION
Recommended
Retain the features that define the
character of a listed property's environs when possible.
When removal of a character-defining feature
or structure is necessary, a new feature or structure that is compatible with
the environs should be installed.
Not
Recommended
Demolition of character-defining features
or structures with no plans for compatible replacement features or structures.
Demolition of character-defining
structure(s) with the intention of creating open space, such as a parking lot
or park.
The HRC requested that the applicant continue to work with staff and
the HRC or Architectural Review Committee (a sub-committee of the HRC) to
refine the proposal so that it would meet the overall objectives of the
applicant and meet the overall intent of the standards and guidelines. The main items of concern for the HRC were
the demolition of
Discussion
Review of the
project under 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. That determination was made
by the HRC and stands. Because the HRC
has made this determination on behalf of the State Historic Preservation
Office, the project can not proceed until the governing body, in this case 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.
The applicant wishes to demolish the existing structure. As noted in
the HRC
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. Compatible
is defined as a structure that is fitting in size, scale and massing,
materials, and setbacks.
The deterioration of
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
identified any planning to minimize harm to the listed properties. Additional planning that should be required
to minimize the harm to the listed properties should the City Commission
approve this project includes:
Staff Recommendation
Historic Resources staff recommends the City Commission hold a public hearing and make the determination that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project and that all planning to minimize harm to the environs of the listed properties had not been undertaken. Staff is of the opinion that the 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 these significant cultural resources.
Action Request.
The City
Commission shall 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.
Attachments: HRC
Minutes
Applicant
submittals from HRC meeting
Feasibility
of Rehabilitation Analysis