Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Demolition 2100 Bonebrake topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks demolition of historic 2100 S. Bonebrake; council weighs Landmark review and city backstop
Summary
The owner of a landmarked commercial building at 2100 South Bonebrake has applied for a demolition permit and told the council July 15 that funding shortfalls make demolition likely; the structure’s listing on state and national historic registers requires Landmark Commission review before a permit can be issued.
City staff updated the Hutchinson City Council July 15 on the condition of the commercial structure at 2100 South Bonebrake and outlined procedural steps after the owner filed for demolition.
Building Official Jason Leidy said the city previously passed a condemnation resolution on April 1 that ordered repair or removal; the property owner has removed material from the site and engaged an architect and engineer, but staff reported no bonding has been secured and no permanent repairs completed. Leidy said the owner’s contractor submitted a demolition permit application: “The contractor has applied for a permit for demolition,” Leidy said, and staff had not issued the permit because demolition of a landmarked structure must first go to the Landmark Commission.
Owner Susie Gress told council that after pursuing grants and federal programs her funding expectations changed and she and her contractor, Rick Friar of R & D Construction, concluded demolition may be the only viable path. Gress said in part, “We had to go back and reevaluate… it is heartbreaking. But between now and the review, if somebody falls out of the sky, I won't tear it down because this is not what we want.”
Historic-preservation steps: the building’s listing on state and national registers triggers the city’s preservation process. If the Landmark Commission denies a demolition certificate — an outcome several council members said is likely — the owner may appeal to city council; council may then authorize demolition if it finds no prudent alternative and must notify the State Historic Preservation Office in advance of the council hearing.
Council debate centered on timing and cost: some council members urged the city to prepare demolition bids in parallel so a city-funded demolition could follow quickly if the owner does not proceed; others said awarding a contract while the owner seeks Landmark relief would waste staff time and could prevent the owner's contractor from doing the work. Several council members and staff agreed to ask the Landmark Commission for a special meeting in the next two weeks and to return to council at the Aug. 5 meeting with an update rather than immediately soliciting bids.
What happens next: staff said it will coordinate a special Landmark Commission meeting, provide the owner appeal forms and timing, and return to council with the Landmark outcome and recommended next steps. Staff also said it will not issue a demolition permit until required preservation steps and any appeal process are complete.
