Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning and Development Services

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

CC:

Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager

Casey Toomay, Assistant City Manager

Randy Larkin, Senior City Attorney

Scott McCullough, Director Planning and Development Services

FROM:

Planning Staff

DATE:

May 6, 2015

RE:

620 E 8th Street Demolition Application Appeal

 

Background

A demolition permit application was submitted by Robby Klim for Michael Pogany of Black Hills Corporation on January 21, 2015.  Review comments were sent to the applicant on January 28, 2015.  In the Review Comment letter, the applicant was advised that the demolition request would require review by the Lawrence Historic Resources Commission (HRC) and that it had been placed on the March 26, 2015 agenda.  On March 26, 2015, staff sent an official determination letter to Black Hills and their attorney stating that the project had been denied by staff and an appeal could be heard by the HRC in accordance with 20-308(g) of the Land Development Code that evening at the HRC meeting.  Representatives from Black Hills attended the HRC meeting. 

 

The HRC made the following determinations based on the Design Guidelines 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone for the 8th and Pennsylvania Urban Conservation Overlay District at their meeting on March 26, 2015. 

 

1.    Interpreted the Guidelines to include this structure (620 E 8th Street) in the category of Quonset Huts. (Unanimously approved 4-0)

2.    Found the request is not related to public safety and demolition will require additional documentation. (Motion carried 3-1)

3.    Denied the proposed project as it does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone.  Specifically, the project does not include plans for a replacement structure and or proposed development of the site if demolition were to occur. (Motion carried 3-1)

Project Description

The applicant proposes to demolish the structure located at 620 E 8th Street to allow for significant environmental testing.  The testing is required because the site has a history of uses that have potentially contaminated the site.  Due to the site history, the application material notes that the site was only granted a “Resolved with Restriction” determination in 2000.  This restricted use does not allow residential uses or drinking water wells.  The restrictive covenant must be conveyed with any sale of the land and KDHE must be provided notice of any excavation activities. The application materials also note that the needed testing is not possible with the building remaining in-place. According to the applicant, the clean-up of the site will be required before the site can be redeveloped.  The applicant would like to discover the extent of the required remediation prior to redevelopment of the property.

 

Procedure as Defined in 20-308(f) and (g) of the Land Development Code

(f) Development/Design Standards

In establishing a UC District, the Historic Resources Commission or Planning Commission are authorized to propose, and the City Commission is authorized to adopt, by ordinance, District-Specific Development and Design Standards (referred to herein as “Development/Design Standards”) to guide development and redevelopment within UC Districts:

(1) when Development/Design Standards have been adopted, all Alterations within the designated UC District shall comply with those standards. For the purposes of this section, “Alteration” means any Development Activity that changes one or more of the “Exterior Architectural Features” of a Structure, as the latter term is defined in Chapter 22 of the City Code;

(2) when there are conflicts between the Development/Design Standards of the Base District and adopted UC District Development/Design standards, the UC Development/Design Standards will govern;

(3) the Development/Design Standards will be administered by City staff in accordance with adopted administrative policy.

 

(g) Appeals

(1) Notwithstanding the procedure set forth in Section 20-1311, a person aggrieved by a decision of the City staff, determining whether the Development/Design Standards have been met, may file a written appeal with the Historic Resources Commission. The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) Working Days after the decision has been rendered.

(2) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Historic Resources Commission, determining whether the Development/Design Standards have been met, may file a written appeal with the City Commission. The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) Working Days after the decision has been rendered.

(3) the City Commission is the final decision-making authority in determining whether a proposed project meets the adopted Development/Design Standards.

(4) the Board of Zoning Appeals has no authority to grant interpretations, exceptions or variances from the adopted Development/Design Standards.

(5) within thirty days after the City Commission’s final decision, in passing upon an appeal pursuant to this Section, any person aggrieved by the decision may file an action in District Court to determine the reasonableness of the decision.

 

Design Guidelines 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone for the 8th and Pennsylvania Urban Conservation Overlay District.

Staff is of the opinion the following applies to the demolition request.

 

PRINCIPLES, STANDARDS, AND CRITERIA

 

DEMOLITION

Demolition should be the result of a holistic planning and development process. 

 

Any demolition request not related to public safety shall be accompanied by additional documentation indicating the existing condition of the building and the proposed use for the site.  Documentation shall include proposed elevations and an explanation of why it is not feasible to use the existing structure/building.

 

Demolition permits shall be reviewed by the Historic Resource Commission.  If the permit is denied by the Historic Resource Commission, it may be appealed to the City Commission.

 

ZONE 4

 

Architectural Characteristics and Materials

1.     Retaining the Quonset Huts in adaptive re-use when economically feasible.

 

 

Staff Analysis

According to Sanborn Maps and aerial photographs, the structure was constructed between 1949 and 1966.  The applicant has identified the construction date for the site as the early 1950s.  While the term Quonset Hut was originally used to identify a specific structure, the term has evolved into a more generic term for post-World War II metal structures with similar characteristics to the Quonset Hut.  The structure appears to have architectural merit as a post-World War II structure that was designed to be fabricated on site with metal structure and sheathing for an industrial purpose.  The industrial purpose for this structure relates to the overall East Lawrence Industrial Historic District and the 8th and Pennsylvania Urban Conservation Overlay District.  The Design Guidelines 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone do not define Quonset Hut.

 

Demolition permits should be accompanied by additional documentation to ensure that demolition is part of a holistic planning process.  The exception, as noted above, is if there is an issue of public safety. The structure has not been cited as unsafe or dangerous.  There is a possibility that the land below the structure may be contaminated, but this has not been verified by the applicant with core sampling. Demolition of structures is rarely positive for a neighborhood because it alters the existing character-defining spacial relationships in the area. Demolition of structures also removes the opportunity for future owners to rehabilitate the structure for a modern use. 

 

Staff has offered the following alternatives to proposed demolition:

1.    Offer to sell/give the structure to a potential buyer for the structure to be moved to a compatible site. 

2.    Move the structure on site to an area that has been previously tested to allow for the future sale of the property to include the structure.

3.    Test the soil with the structure in place using a method that will allow the stability of the structure and the removal of the remaining slab.

4.    Core sample to verify that there is a need to remove the structure.  While it is anticipated that there is environmental clean-up that will have to take place, this is currently unknown.  If there is documented need for the removal of the structure because of contaminants, a good argument that the additional documentation (plan for proposed use for the site) is not needed due to public health issues.

 

Staff is of the opinion that there are alternatives to the demolition of this structure regardless of its architectural classification.  The structure appears to be 50 years old and is an example of an industrial type building that is compatible with the area.  The concern for staff is the loss of the resource without documented knowledge that there is a public safety issue thus negating the additional information as identified in the guidelines. 

 

An additional option for the applicant is to provide the additional documentation required to accompany the demolition application. 

 

Commission Options

  1. Deny the demolition permit.
  2. Approve the demolition permit.
  3. Defer action on the appeal for 30 days to allow the applicant the opportunity to evaluate and exhaust alternatives to the demolition including the possible sale and relocation of the structure or provide additional documentation for the proposed redevelopment of the site.  

 

Staff Recommendation

 

Staff recommends the Commission postpone action on the appeal to allow time for the applicant to exhaust alternatives to the proposed demolition. 

 

Action

Defer action on the demolition permit application for 30 days to allow the applicant the opportunity to evaluate and exhaust alternatives to the demolition as proposed or provide additional documentation for the proposed redevelopment of the site.