BEFORE THE PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PHOENIX, STATE OF OREGON

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PHOENIX, STATE OF OREGON In the matter of an application for a ) PLANNING COMMISSION Demolition Permit for a property ) Commonly known as Furry House ) RECOMMENDATION And located at 4585 South Pacific Highway ) City of Phoenix, Oregon ) Applicant Wes Norton/Creekside Estates ) 4601 S. Pacific Highway, City of Phoenix, ) Oregon ) Planning Commission Recommendation for DEMO15-01, recommending that a permit to demolish an historic building be conditionally approved by the City Council of Phoenix. WHEREAS, 1. The Planning Commission has duly processed the application filed in accordance with the provisions of the Phoenix Development Code; and 2. On April 27, 2015, the Planning Commission acting in its capacity as the Historic Review Board duly held a public hearing on the request for a Permit to Demolish an Historic Structure; and 3. At the public hearing on said application, evidence and recommendations were received and presented by the applicant and City Staff; and 4. The project was found to be in compliance with the Phoenix Development Code; and 5. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, after deliberation on the facts and testimony received, the Planning Commission, on a motion duly seconded, acted to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the request. Now Therefore, the Phoenix Planning Commission concludes that: 1. The Findings of Fact presented within the Staff Report dated April 16, 2015 are hereby affirmed. 2. The proposed amendment of the Phoenix Land Development code complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code and Phoenix Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed amendment of the Phoenix Land Development code is in the public interest and should be ratified by the Phoenix City Council after a duly noticed public hearing has been conducted. Accepted and approved this 27 th day of April, CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Micki Summerhays, Chair Matt Brinkley, Planning Director Page 1 of 6

2 Exhibit A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS File Numbers: DEMO15-01 Property Owner/Applicant: Wes Norton/Creekside Estates Date of Report: April 16, 2015 Date of Planning Commission Meeting: April 27, 2015 Documents Reviewed: application; City of Phoenix Comprehensive Plan, Historic Resources Element; SP12-02; PA12-01 I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Request: Demolition Permit for an Historic Building B. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Commercial (Biologic Crop Solutions) South: Residential (Creekside Estates manufactured housing neighborhood), commercial (Leave Your Mark Landscape Supply) East: Residential (Creekside Estates manufactured housing neighborhood), commercial West: Commercial (mechanics garages) C. Site Characteristics: Typical Four Square single family, wood clapboard residential building constructed in D. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: High Density Residential E. Property Zoning: R-3 High Density Residential II. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Furry House is located on a little over 1 acre of land. Several other buildings once stood on the same lot, but have since been demolished or destroyed by fire. The applicant completed mass grading of the portion of the site where 3 new multifamily residential buildings are proposed and have been approved for construction through SP The staff report completed for PA12-01 described the Furry House as a very important historic building. The report, however, does not provide any additional explanation of this statement. It is designed and constructed in a way that is typical of similar structures from that era. Its architectural features are highly representative of a certain style (four square) and period (early 20 th Century), but have not been identified within the documents reviewed for this report as particularly extraordinary. The current condition of the property, and its relationship to the decision to permit demolish of the Furry House are discussed below. III. CRITERIA & STANDARDS FOR REVIEW According to Chapter A of the PLDC, No historic building or other structure shall be demolished unless so authorized by the City Council. Prior to its decision, the Historic Review Board shall schedule and conduct a public hearing to consider the request and to provide opportunities for public input. In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the HRB shall take into consideration at least four (4) criteria including: 1. The present state of repair of the building and the reasonableness of estimated restoration costs. 2. The character of the neighborhood in which the structure is located and its influence on or importance to other historic structures. Page 2 of 6

3 3. The City s Comprehensive Plan for the area and the importance to the community of other planned land uses. 4. Alternative to demolition, including preservation and relocation. Each standard is analyzed in the following: 1. The present state of repair of the building and the reasonableness of estimated restoration costs. The condition of the Furry House has been evaluated by several experts over the past two years. In general, these assessments conclude the building is in relatively good condition structurally and could be expected to withstand the stresses of relocation. Most of the wood siding is intact according to a report by Rodger S. Whipple, restoration consultant. He also found that All exterior millwork is reasonable, needing good prep and painting. Plaster and lath in the interior of the building, however, is in categorically diminished condition to varying degrees. The porches are deficient and sagging due to poor structural support. The structural integrity of the enclosed portions of the building itself appears to be good. The current relatively good structural condition of building notwithstanding, repurposing the building would require very substantial enhancements and alteration. The building has not been modernized and would likely require new electrical, HVAC, and plumbing systems in order to meet current building code requirements. Relocation would damage existing plaster and lathe, much of which would needed to be removed anyway in order to install these systems throughout the building. New windows and insulation would be required to meet current energy efficiency standards. If the building were repurposed for public use (as a government office, for example) it would need to be altered in order to meet current requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architect Kistler Small White estimated total costs to relocate and renovate at $492,000 - $735,000, depending on the extent of renovation. That estimate assumed the end use would be office. According to SP12-02, the Furry House would have been converted to a 4 dwelling unit apartment building. The costs of doing so would likely exceed estimates for conversion to office space due to the need for additional kitchens and bathrooms, separate entries and MEP systems. The property owner and developer, Mr. Norton, plans to construct 3 2,800 square foot 4 unit apartment buildings adjacent to Furry House as a part of the same project for approximately $100/square foot. Even if the cost of were $150/square, a new building would still be less expensive to construct. Chapter does not provide standards for determining the reasonableness of cost of restoration. In this particular case, however, it is known that restoration for the purposes of beneficial reuse would require nearly complete reconstruction of its interior (replacement of most, if not all, wall surfaces, and windows and installation of building code compliant insulation, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing). From the present property owner s perspective, restoration of the building onsite may make little financial sense relative to his plans for redevelopment of the property. For another developer with vacant land available for relocation of the Furry House and a different set of development goals, the cost of restoration relative to those goals may be more reasonable. As of this writing, however, such a developer simply does not exist. At the same time, the applicant s claim that restoration is not a reasonable alternative does have a factual basis in estimates of cost gathered by an independent party (Phoenix Urban Renewal Agency). Page 3 of 6

4 2. The character of the neighborhood in which the structure is located and its influence on or importance to other historic structures. The Furry House is located in an area that is defined much less by its proximity to any identifiable neighborhood and more by its location on South Pacific Highway/OR-99 at the south end of the City. Nonresidential, intensive commercial land uses dominate both sides of OR-99 in the immediate vicinity. Several older buildings that were constructed as single family homes have been repurposed for commercial uses (for example Welburn Electric and Leave Your Mark landscaping supply) and are well maintained. But most of the buildings in the surrounding area are more recently built block construction commercial buildings with no obvious historic value or architectural merit. The subject is not a part of a larger historic neighborhood or known historical or cultural site. The loss of this particular building at this particular location is not likely to precipitate the sudden conversion of other buildings of historic significance in the immediate vicinity, because those buildings do not exist (or exist within the context of an identifiable historical district or site). A larger issue, however, is whether or not the demolition of the Furry House would undermine efforts to preserve other buildings of similarly unresolved historic significance elsewhere in the City. That question is difficult to answer, and beyond the scope of this review. What is known, however, is that the Furry House has been vacant since 2004 (according to information provided by the applicant) and has been left in a state of slow but unabated deterioration over the past decade. File documents and the report for PA12-01 recount a pre-application meeting in May, 2012 where the former PHURA Executive Director expressed interest in relocating and restoring the Furry House. At that meeting, the Executive Director mentioned the possibility of listing the building on the National Register of Historic Places and pursuing grant funding for preservation efforts. According to the PA12-01 report, the PHURA board was interested in relocating and restoring the building. Between May 2012 and the writing of this report, that initiative has not resulted in the relocation of Furry House; nor has the building been listed on the National Registry; nor has grant funding been identified and pursued. The planning department did not discover evidence of any other effort made to preserve Furry House during that time. 3. The City s Comprehensive Plan for the area and the importance to the community of other planned land uses. The City s current Comprehensive Plan does not discuss a plan for the area with any specificity. It does not identify this part of the City as an historic neighborhood, but it does identify the Furry House as an Other Significant [Site] within its Historic Resources component. Residential land uses are discussed in great detail in the Housing Component of that plan. Need for residential land at various densities is established within that document. High density residential land is of particular importance to the City of Phoenix in the context of several comprehensive plan goals including the provision of affordable housing and achieving a mix of housing types that appeal to individuals and households with diverse housing needs. The significance of higher density residential development is also a central feature of the Regional Problem Solving Plan, which was adopted by the City in That document established minimum community-wide standards for residential density. Phoenix has committed itself to Page 4 of 6

5 achieving a gross residential density of 6.6 dwelling units per acre. In order to fulfill its commitment, residential land in Phoenix will need to be developed at higher densities than before. None of this is to suggest that higher density residential development and historic preservation are naturally in conflict. The contrary is often true. But it is to say that in this particular case, the comprehensive plan is rather ambiguous. Higher density residential development is needed within Phoenix for a variety reasons. Ideally, the Furry House would be restored and repurposed as a multifamily or mixed use building or relocated to a smaller residential lot where its continued use would be consistent with a range of comprehensive plan goals. 4. Alternative to demolition, including preservation and relocation. The Phoenix Urban Renewal Agency has evaluated the feasibility of relocating the subject for reuse as a part of the Market Hall/City Center redevelopment project that it has been planning for the past several years. This culminated in the issuance of a formal Request for Proposals on January 21, According to PHURA staff, no proposals were submitted by the deadline. One party did express interest in the project after the deadline had passed, but was not able or willing to meet certain threshold criteria that were established by the RFP. Preserving the building in its present location as single family home is complicated somewhat by its land use entitlement status. Having been constructed in 1900, the building and single family residential use predates the City s Land Development Code by many decades. However, the property is designated for High Density Residential in the current Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Problem Solving Plan that was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 also requires that the City of Phoenix meet certain minimum densities (see discussion in #3). Changing Land Use Map designations in a way that would greatly reduce residential densities would conflict with those standards. From a land use perspective, preserving the Furry House at its current location as a single family home is problematic. An alternative location would likely need to be identified, preferably one that is more supportive and complementary to the character of the building and its historic attributes. In the absence of an interested and capable private developer, PHURA or the City of Phoenix would need to act as a developer of last resort if the building were to be preserved. This would require that either or both entities to identify a location for temporary or permanent placement, determine a strategy for preservation, and commit substantial financial resources to the project. As of the writing of this report, neither entity has expressed a willingness to assume that role. V. DISCUSSION The criteria for reviewing and ultimately approving or denying a request for a permit to demolish an historic building should be taken together and considered in relation to one another. The decision should also consider its practical consequences, in particular the City s ability to enforce the decision and achieve a desired outcome. The following is a summary of facts upon which Staff has formed its recommendation for action: The Furry House has been identified by the City s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan as a building of historic significance, and thus a special demolition permit MUST be obtained prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Building Department; Page 5 of 6

6 The Furry House is historically significant, though the extent of its historical and cultural significance to the City of Phoenix and its community have not been well established or described; The applicant has presented substantial evidence of the expense for restoration and beneficial reuse of the Furry House; That expense, moreover, may be said to be excessive or unreasonable given the applicant s purpose in seeking to demolish the building; Demolition of the building will not adversely affect the historic character of surrounding properties or district; High density residential land uses are prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan for this property and essential to the achievement of its stated goals; An alternative to demolition has been actively sought by a third party (Phoenix Urban Renewal Agency); and No other interested parties have proposed a viable alternative to demolition. The feasibility of preserving the Furry House is ambiguous: a developer for whom historic preservation is a priority would approach this application differently than the applicant for whom historic preservation is, apparently, not a high priority. For the applicant, given his priorities for the use of the property, the cost of preservation is unreasonable. It is also true that no other entity has proposed a viable alternative to demolition (by assuming responsible for preservation or by offering financial assistance to offset the incremental cost of preservation over demolition and new construction). Within this context it is also extremely important to understand that the City s ability to compel the applicant to preserve the Furry House is also extremely limited. Some communities require owners of historically or culturally significant sites to maintain those properties in a condition of good repair and prohibit the alteration of those sites in a way that would diminish their significance. The PLDC does not provide any mechanisms to achieve those goals. If this application were denied, the City would not be in a position to ensure the preservation of Furry House through enforcement measures. The applicant would be able to leave the Furry House in its current condition, and the City would have no recourse. VI. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for a Permit to Demolish an Historic Building, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall submit a complete application for a Minor or Major Modification (as deemed appropriate by the Planning Department) to the approved site plan, SP The modification shall depict proposed future development of the land currently occupied by the Furry House and any and all related improvements and appurtenances. The application for the modification shall be made within 14 days of approval by the City Council of DEMO Demolition may not proceed until the application for the modification to the approved site plan has been reviewed and approved. 2. The applicant shall obtain a separate demolition permit from the Building Department. The permit shall include asbestos and lead paint surveys conducted by an accredited inspector. The presence of these or other hazardous material above state and federal criteria shall be mitigated or abated prior to demolition, pursuant to local, state, and federal laws and regulations, and evidence of compliance with these requirements shall be provided to the Building Department prior to the commencement of demolition activities. 3. Failure to meet these conditions shall render DEMO15-01 null and void. Page 6 of 6