7.2 Demolition by Neglect in Historic District
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 1
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
ITEM: Ordinance No. 06-10336
Consider an amendment of Article IX. Heritage Conservation District, Section 42-464(f)(2) c. 1. by
amending the criteria to be considered when reviewing the proposed demolition of an individual
landmark or contributing structure within an historic district.
BACKGROUND:
Salina enacted its original Heritage Conservation Ordinance on November 27, 1979. The ordinance
prescribed the development of a preservation plan and the seven-member board of the Heritage
Commission. A process for design review and a detailed hearing and review process for the
nomination of individual historic properties were established. A systematic survey of all properties
within the 1930 Salina city lim its was undertaken in 1983 with the assistance of a preservation
planning consultant and the State Historic Preservation Office. The results of the survey were
compiled in two Historic Resources Inventories that were published in 1984 and 1985.
The principal motivation for the enactment of the Conservation Ordinance was the desire to protect
historic buildings from demolition or insensitive alterations and to preserve the historic appearance of
historic neighborhoods.
The Conservation Ordinance was broadened and refined in 1990 in order to conform to State enabling
legislation. The 1990 ordinance outlined specific procedures for the designation of contiguous groups
of historic resources as historic districts, as well as regulating changes to the exterior appearances of
buildings or structures within these districts. Design review standards and criteria were included in the
ordinance to guide the Heritage Commission's review of proposed changes to landmarks and historic
district properties. The nine general standards contained in the ordinance were based on the
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, standards in use by State and Federal Agencies.
Three (3) historic districts have been created since the adoption of this ordinance, the Highland
District south of Crawford, the Highland/Prescott/Eighth Street District north of Crawford and the South
Santa Fe Historic District.
The design criteria in the Conservation Ordinance applied to alterations, new construction, demolition
and relocation, signage and accessory buildings. The ordinance also provided for an appeals process
and a certificate of economic hardship provision. The Ordinance was and remains similar to
ordinances adopted by other Kansas Certified Local Governments, such as Lawrence, Hutchinson,
Kansas City and Wichita.
An amendment to Salina's Conservation Ordinance was approved in 1997 that added a Heritage
Conservation District designation. The Conservation District designation provided protection for 285
non-contiguous buildings or structures identified in the 1985 Historic Resources Inventory from
demolition or relocation without review by the Heritage Commission. The Conservation District
Ordinance provides for a delay of a demolition proposal for up to one year for designated conservation
properties while bona fide efforts to preserve and rescue the building are made. While most of Salina's
significant historic properties are already designated as National/State Register properties or local
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 2
landmarks, the Conservation District designation includes properties that are not local landmarks and
are not within designated historic districts. Examples of conservation properties within the city include
Oakdale School and Christ Cathedral Episcopal Church.
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
Existinq Requlations - Historic Landmarks and Districts
The Certificate of Appropriateness requested by the Salina Regional Health Foundation (SRHF) in
2005 for 120 West Prescott Avenue was required because it involved a contributing property that was
located within the Highland/PrescotUEighth Street Historic District. Therefore the criteria pertaining to
demolition of contributing properties in historic districts and National Register environs applied. The
criteria for demolition of landmarks and contributing properties within an historic district contain the
following provisions:
Sec. 42-464. Certificate of appropriateness.
(f) Design criteria:
c. Demolition, relocation and land surface change:
1. Demolition in whole or in part of individual landmarks or any contributory
structure within an historic district shall ordinarily not be permitted.
Exceptions are allowed only if a structure has been substantially damaged
through fire, windstorm, flood or deterioration, and if there is reasonable proof that it
would not be economically or physically feasible to rehabilitate. Other exceptions
may be allowed if a structure does not possess the integrity, originality,
craftsmanship, age or historical significance to merit preservation.
These criteria were part of the 1990 Heritage Conservation Ordinance.
The house at 120 W. Prescott had been allowed to remain vacant since its purchase by a previous
owner in 2000. A demolition request in the fall of 2000 was denied by the Heritage Commission and
later upheld on appeal by the City Commission because of findings that it was feasible to rehabilitate
and reuse the property as a residence. After denial of the demolition request, the owner of the
property chose to secure the building and allow it to remain vacant and deteriorate rather than to
make any effort market the property as a residence. This was allowable because Salina's Heritage
Conservation Ordinance does not place an affirmative duty on owners to maintain properties located
in an historic district.
The SRHF acquired the vacant property at 120 W. Prescott in August 2004. A proposal by SRHF to
demolish the house was denied by the Heritage Commission but was later overturned by the City
Commission. Among the findings made in that decision was that rehabilitation and reuse of the house
was not a feasible and prudent alternative to demolition because construction costs would exceed the
value of the structure. In this case, the extended vacancy, the neglect of basic maintenance and
subsequent deterioration of the property became a strong argument in support of demolition as the
most viable option.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 3
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
When this case was being considered, the Planning staff identified a weakness in the existing
Conservation Ordinance that it felt needed to be addressed as a follow up action. This was an
enforceable provision for the ongoing maintenance of historic properties in order to counter cases of
"demolition by neglect". The City Commission directed staff to research and prepare a report
concerning a potential amendment to the existing Ordinance that would strengthen minimum
maintenance responsibilities and eliminate the incentive to allow the condition of properties to
deteriorate.
The 1990 Conservation Ordinance contains the following section pertaining to property maintenance:
Section 42-468. Minimum maintenance requirement.
All real property, and any building, structure or utility thereon, designated as an historic
landmark or located within a historic district, whether owned or controlled privately or by
any public body, shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for
its protection, preservation, enhancement, perpetuation or use in compliance with the
terms of this article and the applicable codes of the city.
Planning staff has utilized the minimum maintenance provision to send notices to property owners of
local landmark and historic district properties requesting that they address deteriorated conditions on
the exteriors of their buildings or site. The application of the minimum maintenance provision alone
has not proven to be an effective tool in obtaining compliance. This has been because the ordinance
doesn't specifically identify the prohibited conditions of deterioration, provide adequate enforcement
procedures or contain any mechanism that addresses cases of economic hardship.
Planning staff has consulted ordinances in other jurisdictions with historic preservation programs to
examine minimum maintenance provisions such as "demolition by neglect" and property maintenance
codes. Three potential mechanisms have been identified that could require a certain level of
maintenance on historic properties and take away the owner's ability to use their own neglect of a
property to serve as a basis for allowing demolition of a structure.
1. Repeal the separate demolition criteria in Section 42-464 (f)(2) c.1. and adopt the
criteria in Section 42-469.5 (c) applicable to the demolition of individual conservation
properties for the review of proposed demolition of local landmarks and historic
district properties.
2. Repeal the minimum maintenance provision in Section 42-468 and replace it with a
specific demolition by neglect provision or more specific maintenance standards.
3. Adopt a citywide property maintenance code that would apply to historic and non-
historic neighborhoods.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO. 2
Page 4
Existinq Requlations - Conservation Properties
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
The intent and purpose of the 1997 Conservation Properties Ordinance, Sections 42-469 to 42-469.8
of the Zoning Ordinance, was to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures and other
elements that contribute to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and
commercial areas. New construction is not discouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the
preservation of conservation properties.
The review process for individual conservation properties focuses on demolition and relocation. The
process allows the Heritage Commission to make an informed decision while placing more
responsibility on the property owner to find alternatives to demolition or relocation. The criteria used to
evaluate demolition and relocation requests include:
(1) Architectural integrity of the resource;
(2) Surrounding streetscape;
(3) Base zoning of the area;
(4) Development of a reuse plan; and
(5) Whether there has been willful neglect of the property.
Requests for demolition or relocation of a building may be delayed for up to one year while efforts are
made to preserve and seek a reuse of the structure. Ultimately, the Heritage Commission could deny
a request. A delay or denial can be appealed to the City Commission. Exceptions may be made when
there is a determination that an undue economic hardship would be caused to the property owner or if
there is an immediate threat to the public health and safety. Standards and criteria for determining
economic hardship are contained in Section 42-465. Certificate of economic hardship in the 1990
Conservation Ordinance.
A copy of the demolition standards and criteria applicable to individual properties (Section 42-469.5
Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness) is included with this report as Attachment A. Staff
believes that one option for eliminating the incentive to allow historic district properties to continue to
deteriorate is to repeal the existing review criteria in Section 42-464 (f)(2)c.1. and substitute the review
criteria that applies to conservation properties.
Demolition bv Neqlect Ordinance
Demolition by neglect is a term used to describe a situation in which a property owner, intentionally or
unintentionally, allows the condition of the property to suffer such deterioration, potentially beyond the
point of repair so as to threaten the structural integrity of a building or its relevant architectural detail to
a degree that the structure and its character will be lost.
The purpose of a demolition by neglect ordinance would be to require an owner of a landmark
structure or a structure in an historic district to maintain the structure so as to prevent it from reaching
the condition where rehabilitation is no longer economically feasible.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 5
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
Research into ordinances with demolition by neglect provisions in other jurisdictions have identified a
number of scenarios that contribute to the neglect of historic properties. These include property
owners on fixed incomes who may defer maintenance of their own residence, disinvestments and
absentee ownership may also contribute to the problem. Other jurisdictions have encountered cases
in which developers and individual property owners are neglecting their buildings by design.
Sometimes neglect is precipitated by the desire to be rid of the building or as a way of avoiding
rehabilitation costs while determining a higher use for the property. In some cases property owners
using demolition by neglect as a tactic to work around the preservation laws will often argue that the
prohibitive cost of repairs and deferred maintenance creates an economic hardship.
Ideally historic preservation ordinances need a safeguard provision to protect against this type of
justification. Generally, the owner's own neglect should not be allowed to create an economic
hardship. However, it is often difficult to sort out the extent to which an economic hardship is
attributable to an owner's actions or to things beyond the owner's control (i.e., circumstances that
would have existed in any event). In looking at economic hardship and demolition by neglect, it is
important for commissions to look beyond simply the relationship between the cost of repairs and the
purchase price or the "as is" value.
The end result can be the same. If buildings are not maintained they eventually become a health or
safety hazard and may be condemned by local Building Officials. When confronted with visible
evidence of threats to public health and safety and evidence that rehabilitation costs would exceed the
market value of a property, the fate of the building is the same, no matter how willful the neglect that
brought the building to such a state. Overlooked was the fact that the damage to the building was a
direct result of the owner and their refusal to maintain, reuse or secure the property.
The most important tool for controlling demolition by neglect is a carefully drafted provision in the local
preservation ordinance requiring affirmative maintenance and ensuring that the local preservation
commission or code enforcement office is equipped with adequate remedies and enforcement
authority. Any economic hardship provision should be drafted so that it prevents owners from arguing
that their own neglect has caused an economic hardship.
An ordinance must be specific in defining what repairs will be required and what remedies will be
available under what circumstances. One important remedy in other jurisdictions is the authority for
the local government to make repairs directly and then charge back the owner by placing a lien on the
property. Another important tool for controlling demolition by neglect and increasing the effectiveness
of affirmative maintenance programs is the use of incentives. Tax incentives, low cost loans or
matching grants can be means to encourage compliance and help fund maintenance activities for low
income families.
At this point, Wichita and Topeka are the only Kansas jurisdictions that contain a "demolition by
neglect" provision in their City Ordinances. Typical preservation zoning ordinances are "reactive" since
they only take effect when the owner wants to make a change in the property. They do not address
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 6
situations where a historic building is not maintained and is in a deteriorated condition. Communities
can adopt ordinances that allow a more "proactive" approach requiring property owners to take action
to either prevent further deterioration or make repairs. The Wichita ordinance has been in place for
several years. The Wichita Planning staff has informed us that they have not yet prosecuted a
demolition by neglect case but have used the provision in the ordinance to cause improvements to be
made by owners of properties.
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
Implementation of demolition by neglect provisions should only be done when deterioration of a
resource is substantial, as opposed to a property simply needing cosmetic improvements. An example
would be a house that has missing or rotten siding, holes in the roof and broken windows and doors,
rather than a house that needs a fresh coat of paint. The greatest value to such an ordinance is that it
can be used as a tool to bring a neglectful property owner into negotiations for repairs. It would allow a
property owner the opportunity to work with City staff before the property falls into the "dangerous
structure" provisions. This route can result in the governing body ordering the demolition of a property
because it has become a health and safety hazard.
Demolition by neglect ordinances contain the following specific elements:
1) Standards;
2) Petition and action procedures;
3) Economic hardship provisions;
4) Appeals; and
5) Enforcement.
1) Standards are required to provide a benchmark for evaluation. General statements requiring
that a building be kept in good repair will prove to be difficult to enforce because judgments of "good
repair" can be challenged as arbitrary. Precise language in the ordinance should clearly define what is
considered to be deterioration.
2) Petition and action procedures. Petitions that allege demolition by neglect should list specific
defects that reference these standards, so that a reasonable person viewing the deterioration can see
what part of the ordinance is being violated. Clear procedures are necessary to ensure that each case
is handled in the same manner and that property owners are assured of due process. Provisions
should be included in the ordinance for the submittal of petitions alleging demolition by neglect, the
process for notification of the property owner, procedures for conducting hearings and time frames for
actions.
3) Economic hardship provisions. Criteria for evaluating economic hardship must be outlined. This
is a necessary safeguard that protects the local government and property owners from claims of
regulatory takings. The current Conservation Ordinance contains an economic hardship provision that
details the kind of financial information that the property owner must provide in order to demonstrate a
claim of economic hardship and ensure that findings are made in regard to the claim. If such a claim is
valid, the ordinance should also provide guidance in the preparation of a plan to relieve the hardship.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO.
Page 7
2
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
4) Appeals. The ordinance should detail the manner for filing appeals, time frames involved in
each step and the reviewing body.
5) Enforcement. The goal is to protect the historic resource, not to punish the owner. Modes of
enforcement to be considered would be fines, court orders, purchase, liens on property for repairs
made by the City. These must have the potential to be a strong deterrent and have consequences that
that resolve the problem of neglect.
Property Maintenance Code
An alternative to a specific historic district maintenance or demolition by neglect provision would be
the adoption of a Property Maintenance Code. The code would apply to all buildings and structures
within the city not just historic districts. The purpose of such a code would be to protect the public
health, safety and welfare by establishing minimum standards for maintenance, appearance, condition
and other factors for residences and nonresidential properties. In general, the code would require the
exterior of every prem ises and structure to be maintained in good repair, each structure to be
preserved and adjoining properties protected from blighting influences.
A Maintenance Code would preserve and protect historic structures and non-historic structures. This is
included with this report as another option because it does create an affirmative duty to maintain
property, however, it is broader in its application than just strengthening the existing Conservation
Ordinance.
Heritaqe Commission Discussion
These options were received presented to the Heritage Commission at their January 25, 2006 and
April 26, 2006 meetings. Comments from Heritage Commission members on the positives and
negatives related to each of the outlined approaches to addressing affirmative maintenance
responsibilities and cases of demolition by neglect affecting historic properties were received at those
meetings. At the April 25, 2006 Heritage Commission meeting a motion was approved (5-0) asking
staff to finalize an amendment to the Conservative Ordinance that would apply the demolition
standards and criteria applicable to individual Conservative Properties to the Demolition criteria in
Section 42-4640 (f)(2) c.1.
The Heritage Commission also asked staff to continue study of a potential Minimum Maintenance or
Demolition by Neglect Ordinance and a Property Maintenance Code and to bring back draft proposals
at a future meeting. Planning staff believes that additional study and information gathering will be
necessary before bringing the Minimum Maintenance Ordinance and/or Property Maintenance Code
back to the Heritage Commission for their comments.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
06/26/2006
TIME
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION
NO:
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ITEM
NO. 2
Page 8
Planninq Commission Recommendation
BY: Dean Andrew
BY:
The Planning Commission discussed these items at their June 6, 2006 meeting. Following
presentation of the staff report, including photo illustrations, and discussion and questions by
Commission members, the Planning Commission voted 8-1 to recommend that the criteria for
Demolition of Conservation District properties Section 42-469.5 Standards for Certificates of
Appropriateness, be submitted for the criteria in Section 42-464(f)(2) c. 1. and applied to local
landmarks and properties within historic districts as well as individual conservation properties.
The Planning Commission also asked staff to continue looking into a possible "demolition by neglect"
provision and an outline of a possible Property Maintenance Code for review at a future meeting.
CITY COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff has identified the following alternatives for the City Commission's consideration:
1. Approve the attached amendment to the Heritage Conservation Ordinance as drafted.
2. Approve the attached amendment to the Heritage Conservation Ordinance with any minor
revisions, additions or deletions the Commission believes are appropriate.
3. The Commission could send the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration or major revisions.
4. The Commission could decide that no changes or amendments should be made to the existing
Conservation Ordinance and take no action on the proposed amendment.
Encl: Application
Attachments A & B
Ord. No. 06-10336
Publication Date May 11, 2006
Application No. # Z06-3
Date Filed May 5, 2006
Hearing Date June 6, 2006
Filing Fee N/A
Receipt No.
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING TEXT
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The undersigned, being residents of the City of Salina, Kansas, do hereby apply to the Salina City Planning Commission for:
amendment of Article IX Heritage Conservation District, Section 42-464 (f) (2) c. and Section
42-468, by amending the criteria to be considered when reviewing the proposed demolition
of an individual local landmark or a contributing structure located within an historic district
and creating an affirmative duty to maintain designated historic properties.
Applicant's Name (print) Salina City Planning Commission
Applicant( s)
SignatureCU~Cf~.. 5e.cre..+/)'t'""7 Date May 5,2006
Attach additional signature sheets if necessary. Be sure to include name, address, phone and signature of each applicant on the
additional sheets.
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please complete the following in order that correspondence and
communications pertaining to this application may be forwarded to the authorized individual.
Name of representative:
Address:
Zip Code:
Telephone (Business):
T:\PLF Fonns\Filled Applications\Z06-3.dodrev. 080904
E-mail address
ATTACHMENT A
Heritage Conservation District Ordinance #97-9789 (2-17-97)
Section 42-469.5 Standards for certificates of appropriateness.
(a) In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness the heritage
commission shall be guided by the criteria set forth in section 42-464 and the following
criteria:
(c) Demolition. In considering an application for certificate of appropriateness for
demolition of an identified significant building or structure, the heritage commission shall
determine whether the project substantially complies with the following standards:
(1) The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety;
(2) The architectural integrity of the building or structure is no longer evident;
(3) The streetscape within the context of the conservation district would not
be negatively affected;
(4) The demolition would not adversely affect the conservation district in
relation to remaining surrounding buildings or structure;
(5) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with reuse of the building or
structure;
(6) The reuse plan is consistent with existing codes and ordinances for
replacement and new construction;
(7) The property has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the
following;
a. Willful or negligent acts by the owner or tenant that leads to
deterioration of the building or structure;
b. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs;
c. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and
d. Failure to secure and board the building or structure if vacant.
(8) The denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition would cause
an economic hardship as defined and determined pursuant to the
provisions of section 42-465, Certificate of Economic Hardship.
(d) Upon making findings that the standards set out above are not sufficiently met,
the heritage commission may deny the certificate of appropriateness or defer a decision
for relocation or demolition for up to one (1) year during which the applicant must
conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the building or structure. The one-year period
shall begin only when the bona fide effort has commenced. A bona fide effort shall
consist of all of the following actions:
(1 ) Marketing the property for sale or lease;
(2) Filing an application for alternative funding sources for preservation, such
as Neighborhood Revitalization Act, etc;
(3) Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as
rezoning or conditional uses, etc.; and
(4) Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or
architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.
Upon the completion of the one (1) year period and if the applicant provides evidence of
a bona fide preservation effort, the heritage commission shall make a final decision for a
certificate of appropriateness for relocation or demolition.
(Ord. No. 97-9789, S 1, 2-17-97)
Sec. 42-469.6. Exceptions of certificate of appropriateness for demolition of
hazardous structures.
A hazardous structure shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the
building official determines, in writing, that the structure currently is an imminent hazard
to public safety.
(Ord. No. 97-9789, S 1, 2-17-97)
Sec. 42-469.7. Application requirements for certificates of appropriateness in
conservation districts.
Applications for certificates of appropriateness shall be made on a form provided by the
city planning office, and shall include the information and material as set forth in section
42-464.
(Ord. No. 97-9789, S 1,2-17-97)
Sec. 42-469.8. Appeals.
All decisions of the heritage commission including deferrals may be appealed to the city
commission pursuant to the provisions of section 42-464.
(Ord. No. 97-9789, S 1, 2-17-97)
ATTACHMENT B
Excerpt from Conservation Ordinance relating to the review of demolition for
individual landmarks and historic district properties:
Sec. 42-464. Certificate of appropriateness.
(f) Design criteria:
c. Demolition:
1. Demolition in whole or in part of individual landmarks or any
contributory structure within an historic district shall ordinarily
not be permitted. Exceptions are allowed only if a structure has
been substantially damaged through fire, windstorm, flood or
deterioration, and if there is reasonable proof that it would not be
economically or physically feasible to rehabilitate. Other
exceptions may be allowed if a structure does not possess the
integrity, originality, craftsmanship, age or historical significance
to merit preservation.
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2006
Page 8
harmful probably of choices that we're going to have come up here.
Mrs. Soderberg stated I agree.
Mr. Weisel stated I have to weigh in on this. I would have to agree, I think
this is a good addition to the area. Unless we get too far afield, we're not
here to cure all the ills of the bars and everything downtown right now, orthat
this one applicant has to really, with five tables. He's trying to make the
business as best he can. I think it's a good addition to it and there may have
already been something there at some time in the past anyway if that bar has
been there for 60 years. I would say that this would be a good candidate for
approval subject to the staff recommendations minus the staff
recommendation #1, which I think we can have outdoor speakers there
without any real major problem. We do already have laws in the books that
guide that.
Mr. Simpson asked was that a motion?
MOTION: Mr. Weisel stated I would like to make a motion then to approve Application
#CU06-3 with the staff recommendation #2 that the plan should be modified
to provide egress from the public alley to the west, or written permission shall
be obtained from the budding owner to the south to access the patio area
from their property.
Mr. Andrew asked is that with the emergency use only?
Mr. Weisel stated emergency use only.
SECOND: Mr. Schneider
Mr. Simpson stated it's been seconded. Any other questions or comments?
If we're ready to vote those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Andrew stated let's have a show of hands please. Those in favor raise
your right hand. All opposed same sign. It appears the application is
approved.
VOTE:
Motion carried 7-2. (Soderberg and Funk)
Item #3.
Application #CU06-4, filed by Terri Anne Howard, requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a drinking establishment in the C-4 (Central
Business) District. The proposed location is the 3'd floor of the Bondi Building
which is legally described as the South half of Lot 98 and all of Lot 100 on
Santa Fe in the Original Town of Salina and addressed as 121 North Santa Fe
Avenue.
Mr. Simpson stated we're not taking any action on this application today,
however it was published as a public hearing and if there's anyone here from
the public who wishes to make a statement or presentation on this
application you're welcome to do so at this time. Seeing no one, this item
will be postponed until our June 20 meeting.
Item #4.
Application #Z06-3, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission,
requesting an amendment of Article IX. Heritage Conservation District,
Section 42-464 (f) (2)c. and 42-468 by amending the criteria to be
considered when reviewing the proposed demolition of an individual
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2006
Page 9
landmark or contributing structure within an historic district and creating an
affirmative duty to maintain historic properties.
Mr. Andrew presented the staff report and showed photographs of property
in need of repair.
Mr. Andrew stated again there was quite a bit of written material in our report.
Our main focus for today was on the demolition question, but we do have
some follow-up work that we've been requested to do looking at a minimum
maintenance ordinance, and we wanted to get some feedback from the
Commission about whether to focus on historic districts or whether you think
there's some merit to having a minimum maintenance code for all
neighborhoods.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated I think it would be lovely if the entire town of Salina
was well maintained. I don't know that everybody can afford to do the things
for their home that we would like them to do. How would you enforce if you
say, "well that house needs painting," and it's going to cost, I don't know
what, $8,000? People don't have $8,000 to paint their house. How are we
going to enforce that?
Mr. Andrew stated that's the type of thing that we would try to address if we
came back with a community wide property maintenance code. Those are
the type of specific things that we would have to address because many of
these, particularly the situation on South Santa Fe, we even looked at that
through the City's emergency repair program. The people there are income
eligible. Unfortunately the scope of what needs to be done to that property
exceeds what we and our program can spend on an individual property. So
on those we tend to just walk away, but you're correct, and that's particularly
true of historic districts. If you have a higher level of maintenance, which is
more or less a stick, you need to be able to have a carrot, whether it's some
sort of loan fund or pool of funds, or assistance that is available to help
people do the maintenance work or make improvements to the home. That's
something we've continually looked at and struggled with, to see what other
communities are doing. Cities that are over 50,000 in population have
Community Development Slock Grant funds and they will often use those for
that purpose. We're not in that position right now, but that's what the City of
Wichita does. They have a pool of money that's available for assisting with
those types of repairs. You are correct, many of these are not by choice,
some of them are by necessity, they simply don't have the means to do that
kind of repair or maintenance.
Mr. Simpson stated from a historic district perspective, I wonder if people are
aware coming in and buying properties in a district, the requirements and
what it takes to maintain the property in an acceptable manner over a long
period of time. How would you enforce that?
Mr. Andrew stated well it becomes a public education thing that we have
worked very hard at over the years of making the real estate community
aware, of making buyers aware of what property is in a historic district, but
the other half of that is not even just for historic homes or historic districts,
that is understanding an older home and everything that it might entail in the
way of additional maintenance or ongoing maintenance, especially if it's a
multi-story home with wood siding and things of that nature, just the amount
of paint it takes to cover a structure of that size.
Mr. Simpson stated oh yeah, exactly.
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2006
Page 10
Mrs. Soderberg stated the other issue with situations like this, if you don't
have a minimum maintenance ordinance for the whole city, is that if you're a
neighbor to this your property value is certainly affected and that's an issue
of fairness as well.
Mr. Andrew stated that's certainly what you hear. We hear of some cases in
a historic district setting, we also hear it in other neighborhoods, "I have
purchased my property, I've put this much into it, I've maintained mine and
the neighbors have maintained theirs, this is what we see as our
neighborhood standard and we have one holdout over here that is not
showing any interest in meeting that." Like I said we have both, we have
those who simply don't do maintenance and we have those who can't afford
to do maintenance.
Mrs. Soderberg asked on the Attachment A that's before us for
consideration, it's unclear to me what is the new part here? Is it this several
pages or is it conly?
Mr. Andrew stated I don't think we maybe formatted this as well as we could
have. On what is referred to as Attachment B which is at the very end of the
report, that is the current ordinance language that relates to properties that
are an individual landmark or in a historic district so that if somebody had a
request or proposal to take a house on South 8th Street in the historic district
and demolish that, that is the criteria that it would be evaluated on today.
What we're recommending is just striking that from the ordinance and what
you see in Attachment A, in addition to our historic districts, there's 285
individual properties around the city that are protected from demolition just
outright. So if you had somebody saying that they wanted to take the old
Hawthorne School and tear it down, that would have to be reviewed by the
Heritage Commission first before that demolition could occur, and the criteria
that would be used to evaluate that proposal is what you see in Attachment A
there. What we ended up having was two different sets of criteria depending
on whether you were in a historic district or just an individual significant
property. So we thought that the language there that applies to the individual
properties was better, was easier for everybody to understand and to work
your way through as you're reviewing a request for demolition than what is
currently in place, which is shown there in Attachment B. So we were
recommending just getting rid of that language. If somebody asked and said,
"demolition shall ordinarily not be permitted," what does that tell anybody
either as a staff person trying to review an application and prepare a report,
or if I'm sitting on the Commission I'm saying, what does that mean? I think
we as a staff have a hard time explaining to you what that means. I think we
would have an easier time saying that in a proposal, hypothetically, to
demolish Hawthorne School, these are the things you need to take into
account in reviewing that proposal.
Mrs. Soderberg asked will there be additional language at some point about
what happens if the property owner chooses simply not to do this? Is there
any enforcement to this?
Mr. Andrew asked chooses not to do what?
Mrs. Soderberg stated well like under #7, the property has not suffered from
willful neglect as evidenced by the following, so they fail to diligently solicit
and retain tenants, they fail to perform normal maintenance and repairs, they
commit negligent acts. So what if they fail all those things, what happens?
Mr. Andrew stated well that would certainly be grounds for denying the
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2006
Page 11
request to demolish.
Mrs. Soderberg asked so you can't do anything but not allow them to
demolish?
Mr. Andrew stated and then the question comes if they're not allowed to
demolish, do they have any kind of affirmative duty once they've been told by
a Commission that we don't think demolition is the right answer? Then the
question is what duty do they have having been told that to maintain the
property? That's the second part of the equation.
Mrs. Soderberg asked that we don't have yet, but we will have?
Mr. Andrew stated well that's what we're discussing is what that would be.
That's why we use the term demolition by neglect, it is essentially rewarding
somebody for letting their property deteriorate. So there are different ways to
get there but we're not trying to answer all that today or get answers to all
that today. We think the first step is to strike the language that we have now
and substitute this, and it makes it clear that's something that's appropriate
for a reviewing body to take into account, "you willfully neglected this
property, so were not going to reward you by saying it should be demolished,
why don't you make an effort to get it into somebody's hands who wants to
do something with the building." So that's really what it's designed to carry
out.
Mr. Funk asked if the city has another code, I guess I'd call it livability
standards, in other words, if a house deteriorates to the point where it's really
not livable, it can be what do you call it, placarded or something?
Mr. Andrew stated we have put placards on homes which basically says no
habitation is allowed, or we will work with the utility companies to make sure
that there is no power hooked up to that dwelling until it is made livable. It
would have to be really, really bad before it gets to that condition. I would
just refer you back to Page 8 there. One of your choices today would be to
look at this and say we think the way it's structured now with the two different
demolition criteria is fine, if you don't see any need to make any changes or
amendments at this time. The other would be option 2 which is what we
were recommending, that we strike the current language about ordinarily not
allowed and replace it with the language you see there in Attachment A.
Then the options 3, 4, and 5 are there just if the Commission has any opinion
or guidance they would like to give about us doing any further work or
bringing back any additional information about those. Obviously option 5
would be to say you don't think there ought to be any affirmative duty to
maintain historic properties.
MOTION: Mrs. Soderberg stated Mr. Chairman I move that the substitution that is
contained in Attachment A be placed in our, I don't know what is that?
Mr. Andrew stated our Heritage Conservation Ordinance.
Mrs. Soderberg stated yes, be substituted in our Heritage Conservation
Ordinance and direct the staff to continue looking into Items 3 and 4 for
future consideration by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Simpson asked is there a second to the motion?
SECOND: Mr. Schneider.
Salina Planning Commission
June 6, 2006
Page 12
Mr. Simpson stated it's been moved and seconded, any further questions or
comments?
Mr. Funk asked has the Heritage Commission looked at this already or are
they the next step?
Mr. Andrew stated no they have looked at this both in January and April.
We've gone over this with them. Because the Heritage Conservation
Ordinance is within the Zoning Ordinance, the only way that it can be
amended is upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. So we
usually discuss it with them and try to get their direction, but the
recommendation for any change would have to come from the Planning
Commission which is why we brought it to you. But that is identical to their
recommendation.
Mr. Funk asked and then it goes to the City Commission?
Mr. Andrew stated yes the City Commission, and they will decide if they want
to make those amendments.
Item #5.
Motion carried 8-1. (Weisel)
Application #Z06-4, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission, requesting
an amendment of Article X. Signs, Section 42-503 (h) dealing with the number
of signs permitted on corner and through lots.
VOTE:
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file.
Mr. Andrew stated well I confess some embarrassment here, although I'm
not sure it's necessarily been a bad thing as far as the result.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked an angular sign like that or sort of almost rectangular,
would that be two signs?
Mr. Andrew stated if it's triangular it's two-sided, if it's back to back we only
count one side.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated okay well in order to have one physical sign that hits
both streets you'd have to have a triangular sign face wouldn't you?
Mr. Andrew stated well the other aspect to that is you're limited. all these
signs that you see here, you're limited to 32 square feet. So if you put out a
triangular sign, that's actually 64 square feet of sign area. If it's a back to
back sign we only measure the one side, so this is a 32 square foot sign. If
you turned it into an L shape or triangle then it becomes a 64 square foot
sign. So that has implications as well. Our experience has been that the 32
square foot ground sign, one per corner lot, has worked pretty well for
schools, churches, offices, and in terms of making the community attractive
in terms of avoiding sign clutter and some of the other visual things. But
we're certainly open to looking at the big lot situation. I look at the campuses
like St. Mary's Grade School, St. Mary's Church, Sacred Heart, that's one big
zoning lot, and they probably have a need for more than one ground sign
and there's two ways to deal with that. One is to say if you have a situation
like that which is unique, you can go apply for a variance or exception, oryou
can try to write it into the ordinance that says lots with so many feet of street
frontage should be able to have more than one sign.
~~~
<
..~--
. . "" ~;..:' .,.:(#~. . .. ~ '~'t- ,:..~.. ........... '.: \J4
':I';~~-' Cf' .I')Qna. .: .""
.,~ ~jId
v ~ {'C
Historic District House at 645 S. Santa Fe Avenue
Rear Elevation of 645 S. Santa Fe Avenue