Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning & Development Services
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager
|
|
FROM: |
Scott McCullough, Director
|
|
CC: |
Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
|
|
Date: |
July 10, 2008
|
|
RE: |
1232 Louisiana Street DR-12-151-07
|
On June 10, 2008 the City Commission reviewed the staff report and requested additional information from the applicant related to a demolition permit for 1232 Louisiana Street, a structure located in the environs of the Hancock Historic District and the Oread Historic District, National Register of Historic Places. Staff followed up with a letter to the applicant on June 17, 2008 conveying the information requested by the Commission.
On June 27, 2008 the Code Enforcement Manager inspected the property and determined that the property has become so out of repair as to be dangerous, insanitary or otherwise unfit for human habitation or occupancy. Such a determination, under the Property Maintenance Code, Section 110, requires that a structure be either demolished or repaired. That report is attached.
The applicant’s letter dated July 8, 2008 acknowledges that, while permission for the inspection of the structure was granted, no other information requested by the Commission will be submitted for the demolition request.
The project can not proceed until the governing body 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. 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 reasonably 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
The City Commission can consider all relevant factors logically connected to the ultimate decision of whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and whether the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the historical property at issue. The Commission does not have the benefit of the financial analysis that they have reviewed in a previous case to determine if feasible and prudent alternatives exist to the request to demolish the structure. Because that information was not provided, staff maintains that there may be feasible and prudent alternatives, including repairing the structure. However, the recent inspection of the property indicates that inaction to secure the structure from the elements has caused significant structural damage and it may not be as feasible to repair as assumed based on the 2006 inspection.
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. Staff recommends conditions and further discussion on plans to minimize harm to the listed properties to be addressed with demolition, building permits, and rezoning, if approved.
Action Request
The City Commission shall make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the request to demolish the structure and that the program includes/does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property.
If a determination is made to approve the demolition permit request, staff recommends that the demolition permit be granted to include the following conditions to ensure that additional planning for the project will be performed.