HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/16/1989 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 16, 1989
MEMO TO: Judy Woods, Chair, and Mee re of Planning Committee
FROM: Dan Stroh, Senior Planne
SUBJECT: PONNSON HOUSE
At an earlier meeting the Committee heard Linda Van Nest of the White River
Historical Society describe her concerns about preservation of the Ponnson
House, situated at 8103 S. 259th Street. This structure is on the King
County Historic Sites Inventory and on the City's preliminary Historic Sites
Listing. Van Nest relayed plans of the owner to remove the house and
redevelop the site for commercial use Apparently the owner is willing to
donate the house to an organization capable of preservation; Van Nest has
asked the City for assistance in the costs of relocating the house. This
memo summarizes our investigation into the feasibility of relocating the
structure, and sets forth some option ) for proceeding.
RELOCATION COSTS
At a minimum, relocation costs would include the following:
1) the house moving itself
2) reconstruction of basement an foundation
3) building upgrade to meet life safety Code requirements, as required
by the Code Enforcement Division
4) additional repair and renovation work required.
As a start, we have investigated moving feasibility with a local contractor,
Shaughnessy Movers. This firm was recommended by Van Nest as being
experienced in moving historic structures. After visiting the site to assess
the structure, the firm indicates that a move is possible, but difficult and
expensive due to the height and width of the building. They strongly
recommend that if the house is moved, the distance be kept to a minimum.
For a move of any distance, all overhead wires (power, telephone, TV cable,
traffic signal lines) would have to be temporarily moved out of the way. A
distant move may be infeasible because the building's 35 foot height might
interfere with high voltage lines that could not be temporarily rerouted.
Their rough estimate for moving the house next door or across the street is
$20, 000. They do not foresee major structural problems arising from the
move, but expect that some interior da age, particularly to wall plaster, may
result.
Their estimate does not include item 2, reconstruction of the basement and
foundation. Foundation excavation typically takes place prior to the move.
The foundation and basement walls are built after the building is in place
and suspended on timbers over the foundation. A rough estimate for these
costs is $8-10, 000.
The third item, code upgrade to meet life/safety standards, is required by
the City's Code Enforcement Division for all house moves. Standards vary
somewhat depending on whether the fu ure use is residential or commercial .
UDY WOODS, CHAIR; AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 16, 1989
The estimated cost range for this hundred-year-old structure is $8-12, 000.
Additional renovation will likely be required to make the building usable.
The house has not been fully maintained in recent years, and deferred
maintenance costs may be substantial. Interior damage from the move,
particularly plaster repair, will almost certainly be needed. In addition,
some renovation may be needed to accommodate the planned reuse for the
building. These costs could easily amount to an additional $10, 000.
Summing these four items, the estimated cost for the house move and related
work ranges from $46-52, 000.
OPTIONS
As indicated above, the Ponnson House is of considerable local significance.
Built between 1870 and 1890 in a plain Victorian style, the house was once
a showpiece. It is situated at a highly visible location on the Valley
Floor, and is often cited as an example of Kent' s historic heritage.
However, none of the options for preservation is inexpensive. Four options
for preserving the Ponnson House are set forth below.
Option A: Relocation
As discussed above, this option appears to be mechanically feasible, provided
the new site is very close to the current site. Cost (exclusive of land cost
at the new location) ranges from $46-52, 000. The original site context is
a major element of historic value; thus the relocation option is not optimal
for historic preservation.
Option B: Acauisition via Purchase
Given the high cost of relocation and the potential for some interior damage,
outright acquisition of the site may be a preferable alternative. The
assessed valuation of the land, County tax parcel 0006600021, is $58, 100, for
the 21,531 square foot lot. Improvements are valued at $15, 000. (Note: the
assessed valuation is not necessarily equal to market value. ) Potentially
the owner might consider donating a portion of the property value. since
this option would not involve relocating the structure off its original site,
its historic preservation value is higher than Option A.
Option C: Acquisition via Land Transfer
Potentially the City owns a property of comparable value with similar
development potential, which the owner may be willing to trade for the
historic site. If such a site exists and if the owner is willing, this
option would involve the least immediate outlay of funds. By retaining the
structure on site, it would fully satisfy the historic preservation values.
It should be noted that given the condition of the house, both Options B and
C will probably involve additional costs for building renovation and
maintenance.
2
UDY WOODS, CHAIR; AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 16, 1989
Option D: Use of Historic Preservation Tax Incentive
A major tax incentive for historic preservation at the local level is the
Special Valuation Program established by the State Legislature in 1985. At
present, Kent is not a Certified Local Government for purposes of this Act,
and is not able to provide this tax benefit to local properties. The Council
may wish to review this program as a future tool for historic preservation.
Given the timing of the current proposal, this approach does not appear
feasible in this case.
SUMMARY
The Ponnson House is a historic site of local significance; its demolition
would be a loss to the community. Ideally the private market would find an
adaptive reuse for the building which would allow its continued use.
However, should the building be threatened with demolition, the City may wish
to take preservation action. From a preliminary analysis it appears that
acquisition through purchase or land transfer may be preferable to
relocation. Both relocation and acquisition involve considerable costs.
DS:ca
3