Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/17/2012 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZODATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston, Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources, General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, and constructing one multi-family building with 42 units in their place. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these Modifications of Standard requests. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests in question. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fifty years old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With the exception of the two “intrusion” properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of Remington Street are designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two of these other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711 Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711 Remington Street April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel School neighborhood context. As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January 11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code’s applicability to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for applicability. The Code states: “If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation…, [or] (2) is officially designated as a…state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: 1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code (5-1). QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 23 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect...” The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at 711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, “…references to certain City policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property…”; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 711 Remington structure. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests, as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was made in the Board’s discussion of the first of the five modification of standard requests, that to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity, including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15.) • In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to “…potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the … property….” The only reference to the number of potential alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter states, “I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated.” • In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants’ attorney, Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information or consider it in making its motion. B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and April 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 23 maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State Register Historic District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. • On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with. LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that: The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, “Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts.” Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, “the granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18). April 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 23 The Planning and Zoning Boards’ discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. • The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. • The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). SUMMARY The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated February 16, 2012, Remington Annex Stand-Alone Modification of Standard, MOD120002 4. Letter from Dr. Kozial, City Visions, dated February 16, 2012 5. Requested Findings of Fact submitted by Applicant Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 6. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 7. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 8. Applicant PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 9. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council 10. Summary of City Council Site Visit, 705, 711, 715 Remington Street April 12, 2012 (to be provided in the Council Read-Before packet, April 17, 2012) 11. Written materials submitted by Appellant for City Council to consider in deciding the Appeal, submitted prior to 12:00 p.m., the Wednesday immediately preceding the date upon which the hearing is scheduled. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 1 PROJECT: Remington Annex –Modifications of Standards Request, MOD120002 APPLICANT: Jeff Hansen and Justin Larson Vaught Frye Larson Architects 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Christian and Robin Bachelet Remington Annex, LLC 706 South College Avenue, Suite 202 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications; one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District density standards, one for N-C-B rear-lot floor area ratio (FAR), one regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards and two relating to historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the existing structures and combine the lots at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, constructing one multifamily building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units, and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units. Additionally, to meet their parking requirement, the applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage, with one level at grade and one below grade providing a total of 65 parking spaces. The parcels are located in the N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The approval of these modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this request precedes the project development plan. If approved, the stand-alone modifications are valid for one year. Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to continue to move forward with their previous Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan submittal and provide additional plans for approval. RECOMMENDATION: Denial Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 2 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 4.9 (D) contains three standards relating to density and bulk that the applicant is unable to meet in their proposal for a 42 unit multifamily project. Additionally, the applicant is unable to meet two standards contained in Section 3.4.7 regarding the preservation of an individually eligible local landmark structure that is located within the National and State Register District, to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the scale, massing and the overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School National Register District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of the proposed plan because is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with each of the standards nor does it substantially alleviate a City-wide need or substantially further other cited City Plan policies. COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential converted to commercial use with Kensington Apartments to the northeast); S: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential); E: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential) with NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (existing single-family residential) beyond; W: CC—Community Commercial District (existing commercial and mixed-use properties) with Colorado State University beyond. All three subject properties, 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980 (see attachment 2). Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register “intrusions” when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the district. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in August, 2011. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood context. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be eligible for individual local landmark designation. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 3 3 In October 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) held a Preliminary Hearing on the individually eligible property to explore all means of substantial preservation and moved to continue the meeting. The meeting was continued to January 2012 and the applicant and LPC did not agree upon a means to substantially preserve the structure. The Commission found that the proposed demolition of the Button House, at 711 Remington Street, does not meet the criteria contained in Section 14-72(b) (1) (b) of the Municipal Code, and the Commission moved to recommend that the application proceed to the LPC Final Hearing. A final LPC hearing can only take place after the receipt of the submittal requirements, of which include approved from the Planning and Zoning Board plans (in this instance). The plans, as proposed, do not meet Land Use Code requirements and the applicant is asking for modifications to the specific standards in which they do not meet. A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this project on November 7, 2011. Approximately 25 people were in attendance. The notes from this meeting are attached. 2. Review Criteria A. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2 – Modification of Standards: (H) Step 8 (Standards): The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 4 4 in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). B. Citation of the Standards Relating to the Five Modifications: Section 4.9 (D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). Section 4.9(D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 4.9(D) (6)(d): (6) Dimensional Standards. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 5 5 corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Section 3.4.7(B): General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E): Relocation or Demolition. A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. 3. First Modification – Section 4.9(D) (1) – Density: A. Standard This standard requires that buildings in the N-C-B District have a total lot area equal to the total floor area of the project (1:1 ratio). That is to say that a 19,897 square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area. B. Proposal The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a total of 19,897 square feet. As proposed:  the first floor contains 14,803 square feet o 3,973 square feet of residential floor area o 10,830 square feet of at grade parking garage floor area Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 6 6  the second floor contains 13,290 square feet and  the third floor contains 10, 569 square feet of floor area. (See attachment 10. Fig. 2A) C. Extent of the Modification The first modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to have an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet allowable per the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density exceeding the standard by 94% or practically almost twice as much as would otherwise be permitted. D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Although the building exceeds the maximum floor area allowed by 94%, the applicant contends that, “the granting of the modification will enable implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan… and also help this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone.” The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: The Fort Collins Land Use Code Division 4.9 (A) states that the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB) is to "...provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones..." In the particular area in which the proposed Remington Annex project is located this transition occurs over the span of only four-hundred feet with the Community Commercial District (CC) to the west and the Neighborhood Conservation, Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 7 7 Medium Density District (NCM) to the east (refer to attached figure 2A). The properties adjacent to the west side of the proposed project have been identified in the Fort Collins City Plan as a Targeted Redevelopment Area. According to Policy LIV 5.1 the purpose of this designation is to promote higher density redevelopment and infill. The attached figure 2A illustrates that, for the most part, this redevelopment and infill has yet to take place. Division 4.18(E): Development Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code does not prescribe any requirements or limitations on the overall density of these properties when they are redeveloped. The Collegio development, which is just across the alley from the proposed project, is one of the few examples in the immediate area of what might be expected from these infill redevelopment projects when they are constructed. The lot density of the Collegio project is 2.54. This high density development is in stark contrast to the lot density of 0.50 that Division 4.8(D): Land Use Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code prescribes for the NCM District that abuts the east side of the NCB District where the proposed Remington Annex Project is located. Because of the narrow nature of the NCB District in this area, residential expansion and redevelopment projects (which are encouraged through Principle LIV 6.1 of the Fort Collins City Plan), with lot densities higher than prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(1) would provide a more effective transition between the highly contrasting densities of the CC and NCM Districts. This transition could be made even more effective by promoting higher densities on the west side of Remington Street than on the east side. The nearby Kensington Place apartments to the north-east of the proposed project and the Phi Delta Theta fraternity to the south-east (see attached figure 2A) are examples of existing buildings with a lot densities exceeding 1.00 which successfully work to facilitate this transition. The balance of the existing structures along this portion of Remington Street do comply with the maximum lot density defined in Division 4.9(D)(1) yet are ineffective in defining a transition between the medium density NCM District and the higher density CC District. Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2) will enable implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan as described above and also help this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone. E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification Request Intent of density standard: The density standard is intended to limit new development to an overall massing that keeps with the existing character of the neighborhood, single family homes and a predominant pattern of narrow, deep lots. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 8 8 Zoning: Staff is in agreement that the N-C-B District was intended to provide a “transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial- use areas or high traffic zones” as stated in the purpose statement of the N-C-B District. In this N-C-B specific context, the character is primarily two story single- family homes, with substantial backyards. As the name suggests, the purpose of this zone district is to provide a buffer area, allowing for commercial uses and traffic while keeping the existing character and residential aspect of the neighborhood. While the Community Commercial (C-C) district is indeed to the west and part of the targeted redevelopment areas as stated in City Plan, that is not to say that the C-C requirements and standards are appropriate for the N-C-B district. The applicant’s justification for the modification, citing standards in a different zone district (C-C), is inapplicable and does not satisfy the criteria for the granting of a modification. Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Staff Analysis Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. A modification to the N-C-B density standard to allow a substantial divergence from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum could be seen as detrimental to the public good via the propagation of the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern, street rhythm and defined 700 Remington Block neighborhood context as well as weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 9 9 The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. Substantial Community Need: The applicant fails to provide a compelling substantial community need and the logic behind the request does not follow; therefore, the granting of the a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) does not substantially address an important and defined community need as described in the city's Comprehensive Plan resulting in a substantial benefit to the city of Fort Collins. 4. Second Modification – Section 4.9(D)(5) – Floor Area Ratio (FAR): A. Standard The standard requires that in the rear one-half of the lots, no more than 33% of the land area can be devoted to the gross floor area of buildings and garages combined. B. Proposal The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) on the rear half of the site is 2.28 (attachment 10, Fig. 2A and 2B). The total lot area is 19,897 square feet and the rear half of the lot contains 9,948 square feet. C. Extent of Modification The second modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This equates to 19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in the rear half of the lot per the standard, for an increase of 16,146 square feet over standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33 standard by 195%. D. Applicant’s Justification In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of Section 4.9(D)(5) is justified because the proposed Remington Annex plan is equal to or better than a plan that would comply with the standard. The applicant’s narrative for the second modification request is as follows: Generally, compliance with the maximum rear yard FAR encourages smaller single family homes and duplexes to be constructed closer to the street and Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 10 10 works in tandem with Division 3.4.7(F)(1) & (2) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code to maintain the established building patterns on a block face. The higher density residential expansion and redevelopment projects which are promoted under Principle LIV 6.d of the Fort Collins City Plan are also subject to the provisions of Division 3.4.7 when constructed in historic neighborhoods. With specific relevance to the rear-yard FAR for these projects, Section F, paragraph 1 states in part: " To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located... ...Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site..." And paragraph 2 states: "New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures... ...and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6." In the illustration from the Fort Collins Land Use Code above, the major mass of the new building in the preferred example has been pushed away from the street towards the rear portion of the lot to help maintain the established building patterns on the block face. This is contrary to the literal interpretation of Division 4.9(D)(5) yet is a better solution in a historic neighborhood setting. A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1B) which followed a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 4.9(D)(5) limiting the FAR of the rear fifty-percent of the lot to 0.33. This concept included the demolition of the various additions made to the structure at 711 Remington Street, restoring its original 1888 configuration. This compliant conceptual design, as well as the proposed Remington Annex design, also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4). Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 11 11 Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered all principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) at College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1). The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171 square foot residential building with 4,000 square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen (14) studio apartments, four(4) one-bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,171 square feet of building area. As previously described in the illustration from the Land Use Code above, the intent of Division 4.9(D)(5) is to promote patterns along a block face that appear more like the proposed design (see figures below). Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(1) will promote the general purpose of the standard, which encourages buildings to address and align with other buildings on the block face, and provide for better compliance with Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. E. Staff Evaluation of Second Modification Request Intent rear FAR standard: The NCB district standards are tailored to reflect the value placed on the established neighborhood character, with the rear FAR standard being one of those standards. The intent of the standard is to ensure Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 12 12 the established residential nature of the zone and to reduce the amount and massing of additional structures in the rear of a lot, in keeping with the existing character of the area. Currently, 86% of the properties on the 700 block of Remington comply with the .33 rear FAR standard. Code Citation for Modifications The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; Staff Analysis Public Good: The public good, in this application, lies within a balancing act of established values, aesthetics, culture, the built environment and economics, with the caveat that one should not be at the expense of the other. A modification to the N-C-B rear FAR standard to allow a substantial divergence from the .33 rear FAR maximum could be interpreted as detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern of the 700 Remington Block. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. ‘Equal to or better than’ justification: The applicant prepared a hypothetical conceptual design illustrating a project that would comply with the rear FAR requirement (see attachment 10, Fig. 1A and 1B). The applicant asserts their proposed plan (attachment 7) is equal to or better than the hypothetical plan in attachment 10 as it relates to meeting the rear FAR requirement; however, this is not the case in Staff’s opinion. The hypothetical plan is lacking other mandatory design elements, such as the required block face articulation, compatibility, and sensitive design, required by Section 3.5.1 and 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. The proposed plan is not equal to or better than a project that would comply with the rear FAR because the massing and bulk of the proposed plan is too impactful and the divergence between the proposed 19,823 square feet and the 3,283 square foot code maximum is severe. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 13 13 5. Third Modification – Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) – Dimensional Standards: A. Standard This standard requires that buildings taller than 18 feet step back the height in excess of 18 feet 1 foot for every 2 feet beyond 18 feet in height. B. Proposal As proposed, the structure is 36 feet tall and is not stepped back at any point from the interior side lot lines. (See attachment 7 and 8) C. Extent of the Modification At 36 feet tall, the standard requires project to have the top of the structure be an additional 9 feet from the lot line, instead as proposed, there would be a zero step back. D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) of the Land Use Code, the divergence from the standard and what is proposed is nominal and inconsequential. The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: Strict application of the minimum side yard setback standard would prescribe The entirety of the north and south walls of the Remington Annex project to be set back five feet from grade up to eighteen feet above grade and then increasing at a rate of one foot for every two foot increase in wall height to equal eleven feet at the point where the majority of the third floor walls intersect the roof structure or thirty feet above grade. In order to comply with the various subsections of Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code the north and south walls of the building have been designed to reflect the character of historical buildings in the area. This includes an articulated facade, varying roof heights and dormers all which encroach into the specified side yard setback at various points. These features also create areas where the side yard setback exceeds the requirements of the Land Use Code for the NCB District. When averaged, the side yard setbacks for the proposed Remington Annex project are as follows: Average setback at grade equals five feet and nine inches (5'-9") Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 14 14 Average setback at eighteen feet above grade equals six feet and five inches (6'5") Average setback at thirty feet above grade equals fourteen feet and zero inches (14'-0") These averaged side yard setbacks exceed the requirements Division 4.9(D)(6)(d). Furthermore, the portions of the sidewalls with the greatest encroachment into the required setback is limited to only twenty-percent of the combined length of the north and south walls (see attached figures 3A and 3B). Figure 3A provides plan views at grade level, eighteen feet above grade and thirty feet above grade which illustrate the articulation of the facade as the building height increases. Figure 3B provides section views at a selection of specific conditions along the north and south walls as well as a section view illustrating the averaged side yard setbacks. Both these figures visually describe the nominal and inconsequential nature of the diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) when the building is viewed as a whole, therefore, the Remington Annex project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4). E. Staff Evaluation of the Third Modification Request Intent of the dimensional ‘step-back’ standard: The purpose of this standard is one of impact mitigation. The step-back standard is considered key in regulating the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B district. This standard also recognizes that there are direct impacts to abutting, existing homes and that these impacts can be onerous, detracting from the quality of life for adjacent residents. Additionally, consideration should be given to the impact this structure has on solar access in terms of the shading of adjacent properties and the enjoyment of sunshine. Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 15 15 Staff Analysis Public Good: A divergence from N-C-B dimensional “setback” standard, in this instance, may be contrary to the public good in so much that the volume of this structure, as proposed, creates a looming presence with potential safety implications. The lack of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave-like atmosphere at the pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to the north and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio development. This results in excessive mass too close to the property line. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:… (J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, could impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack in important design considerations as stated in Section 1.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code. Nominal and Inconsequential: In this instance, the zero step back is not nominal nor inconsequential when looking at the design impact it has on the project as a whole. As proposed, the two side walls of the structure would cause a significant negative impact by looming over the two existing historic structures to the north and south and would negatively impact safety and solar access. 6. Fourth and Fifth Modification – Section 3.4.7(B) and (E) A. Standards These standards require designated or individually eligible structure to be preserved and incorporated into the project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. B. Proposal As proposed, the project would not incorporate nor preserve the individually eligible structure into the design. C. Extent of the Modification The fourth and fifth modifications would allow the proposed multifamily development to not incorporate the structure. The Landmark Preservation Commission, in their January 12, 2012 meeting, said they would not support the proposed relocation of the home at 711 Remington Street due to the new locations contextual incompatibility. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 16 16 D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the Land Use Code, The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1B) which apply a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 3.4.7(B), preserving the original portion of the existing house at 711 Remington Street. This concept included the demolition of the various additions made to the structure beginning in the 1960's and restoring the building as closely as possible to its original 1888 configuration. This design also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4). Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered not all principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) along College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 17 17 into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1). The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171 square foot residential building with 4,000 square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen (14) studio apartments, four(4) one-bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,171 square feet of building area. Graphically, this conceptual design re-emphasizes the realization that not all principles of the Fort Collins City Plan are necessarily compatible with each other or with the standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in all cases. It should be noted that the scope of this conceptual design focused only on the redevelopment of the properties involved with the Remington Annex project and does not reflect the redevelopment and infill of the other properties along College Avenue and Remington Street that will eventually occur when the goals of the Fort Collins City Plan are fully realized. Per the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2), in the best interest of the individually eligible historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to encourage the full implementation of the Fort Collins City Plan a modification to Division 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code is being requested so that the structure at 711 Remington Street can be considered for relocation under the provisions of Division 3.4.7(E) to a location that remain contextually appropriate to the scale and historic character of the house while Fort Collins continues to develop according the vision of the City Plan. E. Staff Evaluation of the Fourth and Fifth Modification Requests The two standards in question require the individually eligible building located within the Laurel School National Register District to be preserved and incorporated into the project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. The maximum extent feasible clause puts the burden on the applicant to show that: …no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts (by the applicant) to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. The applicant has not demonstrated a willing to consider the “prudent alternatives” to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the historic building at 711 Remington and adding stand-alone dwellings (duplex or 4-plex dwellings) on either side; or, to retaining the historic structure and build a compatible multi-unit property around it, in such a manner as to meet the LUC requirements. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 18 18 Additionally, neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design appropriately protects and enhances the historical and architectural value of the historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts. Moreover, the policy cited, LIV 5.2, does not apply because: 1) the project is not in the targeted redevelopment area; and 2) the policy is referring to public investment, such as streetscape improvements, not a privately developed multifamily project. Analysis of the ‘City-wide need’ justification: Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. Modifications to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible and National and State Register designated structure at 711 Remington Street is detrimental to the public good in so much that it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall neighborhood context. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 19 19 Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” The proposed project, if approved with this requested modifications, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. Substantial Community Need: The granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan. 7. Findings of Fact In evaluating the request for five (5) stand-alone modifications: Section 4.9 (D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and Section3.4.7(E), Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of modifications to Section 4.9 (D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. a. A modification to Section 4.9.(D)(1) to allow a substantial divergence from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum would be detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern, street rhythm and defined 700 Remington Block historic context as well as weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District. b. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a substantial divergence from the .33 rear FAR maximum would be detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern of the 700 Remington Block and the imposition of an excessive amount of mass and bulk on the enjoyment of the two abutting properties. c. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the structure to step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height would be contrary to the public good in that the volume of the proposed structure creates a looming presence with potential safety implications. The lack of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave-like atmosphere at the pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to the north Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 20 20 and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio development. d. A modification to Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to not protect and enhance the designated and individually eligible adjacent structures and the Laurel School National Register District holistically, is detrimental to the public good in so much that that it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and overall neighborhood context. e. A modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not preserve the individually eligible home at 711 Remington Street, to the maximum extent feasible, is detrimental to the public good in terms of weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and overall neighborhood context. B. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) would not result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. a. The project does not provide substantial, compatible infill and redevelopment as it related to the block face. The N-C-B standards are appropriate and tailored for the residential area and the context. C. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a rear FAR of 2.32 would not result in a project that is equal to or better than a project that has a rear FAR of .33 due to the large mass of the structure in the rear half of the lot. D. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the structure to step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height is not nominal nor inconsequential. a. The standard would require to project, starting at approximately 2 feet after the second floor to step back one foot for every two feet of height. This would result in an additional 9 feet of stepping back the two side walls. A zero step back for the entire height of the two side walls is not nominal and would have a negative impact on the abutting properties and the design as a whole. E. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (B) to a modification to Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to not protect and enhance the designated and Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 21 21 individually eligible adjacent structures and the Laurel School National Register District would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. F. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not require the preservation individually eligible structure at 711 Remington Street to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the standards of Section 3.4.7 would not result in a substantial benefit to the city nor would it substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. Staff concludes that the individual and cumulative effects of the modifications are incompatible with the N-C-B District and the neighborhood context. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of all five Requests for Modification. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Map of Laurel School National Register Historic District 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 5. LPC Staff Report, 711 Remington Street 6. Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Minutes, October 2011 7. Proposed Project Development Plan Site Plan (PDP-1 and PDP-2) 8. Proposed Project Development Elevations (PDP-3) 9. Applicant Modification Request Narrative dated January 30, 2012 10. Applicant Modification Supporting Graphics: Fig. 1A –Concept Design Fig. 1B –Concept Design Fig. 2A – Density and FAR Fig. 2B – Rear half FAR Fig. 3A – Side setback Fig. 3B – Side setback E PLUM ST S MASON ST MATHEWS ST E LAUREL ST REMINGTON ST S COLLEGE AVE OLD MAIN DR W LAUREL ST REMBRANDT DR CITY GEOGRAPHICCOLLINS OF FORT INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS © These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 0 60 120 240 360 480 600 720 Feet eL eg dnaparGsciheleSdetcioPstn tneC nilre e aL sleb craP sle saM k ATTACHMENT 1 - Site Map ATTACHMENT 2 - Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 401 Janu City o Com 281 N P.O. Fort C Atten Re: M Dear VFLA Anne 1 W. Mountain A ary 30, 2012 of Fort Collins munity Devel North College Box 580 Collins, CO 8 ntion: Courtne Modification to r Courtney: A is respectfu ex project: 1. Modificat NCB Distr Code Lan the rear fi calculation The propo and calcu Generally be constru This work building p projects a with Divis neighborh paragraph b s t Streng Ave, Suite 100 s opment & Ne e Ave. 80522 ey Levingston o Standards f lly requesting tion to Divisi rict. nguage: Floor ifty (50) perce n shall be con osed Floor Ar lations) y, compliance 401 W. Mountain A And parag " . t In the illus example h building p solution in A Land Us strict appl percent of structure a This comp principles (LIV 5.1), residentia residentia Other prin 16 and LIV principles where sm Plan calls conflicts, t 16.2), utili redevelop The result square fee (14) studio square fee Ave, Suite 100 graph 2 states "New structur ..and the patt the maximum stration from t has been pus patterns on the n a historic ne se Code com ication of the f the lot to 0.3 at 711 Remin pliant concep of the Fort C public invest al areas (LIV 6 al developmen nciples of the V 17 which p of the City P mall scale histo s for along the the conceptua izing incentive pment activitie ts of this conc et of enclosed o apartments et of building 401 2 W. Mountain A As previo promote p compliant Granting a will promo buildings Code. 2. Modificat Code Lan less than the total g each finis larger tha ceiling he lot. (Open The allow represent proposed exceeding at ground relieve pre proposed Ave, Suite 100 usly describe patterns along t conceptual d a modification ote the genera on the block f tion to Divisi nguage: Dens five thousand gross floor are hed or unfinis n one hundre ight of at leas n balconies an wable total gro ed as a ratio design calcu g the standard level. This bu essure from t lot density w Fort Collins, ed in the illustr g a block face design (see fig n of this stand al purpose of face, and pro ion 4.9(D)(1) sity. Minimum d (5,000) squa ea of all princi shed floor lev ed twenty (120 401 3 W. Mountain A The Fort C Buffer Dis commerci In the par span of on Conserva the west s Redevelo redevelop yet to take any requir The Colle the immed constructe the lot den the NCM located. Because o (which are prescribed of the CC the west s The nearb fraternity t exceeding this portio ineffective Granting a will enable this area o 3. Modificat every 2’ w Code Lan a wall or b the interio thereof of fifteen (15 school an Strict app walls of th Ave, Suite 100 Collins Land U strict (NCB) is ial-use areas rticular area in nly four-hund ation, Medium side of the pro pment Area. pment and inf e place. Divis rements or lim egio developm diate area of ed. The lot de nsity of 0.50 t District that a 401 4 W. Mountain A then incre where the project is figure 3B. the north buildings into the sp setback e setbacks • A ni • A co • A th These ave the sidew combined Figure 3A illustrate t selection averaged diversion Remingto 2.8.2(H)(4 4. Modificat structure a C (1 S pl A Land Us strict appl the existin the structu This desig targeted r redevelop 7.1), and Ave, Suite 100 easing at a rat e majority of th thirty feet abo In order to co and south wa in the area. T pecified side y exceeds the re for the propos Average setba ine inches (9" Average setba ode requirem Average setba he code requi eraged side y alls with the g 401 Since Jeff H W. Mountain A Other prin 16 and LIV principles where sm Plan calls conflicts, t 16.2), utili redevelop The result square fee (14) studio square fee Graphical Plan are n cases. It s properties other prop Collins Ci Per the cr Remingto 3.4.7(B) o considere appropria vision of t We thank of the City erely, Hansen Ave, Suite 100 nciples of the V 17 which p of the City P mall scale histo s for along the the conceptua izing incentive pment activitie ts of this conc et of enclosed o apartments et of building ly, this conce necessarily co should be not s involved wit perties along ty Plan are fu riteria of Divis on Street and of the Land Us ed for relocatio te to the scale he City Plan. you for your y of Fort Colli Fort Collins, ATTACHMENT 5 1 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Tuesday, February 16, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Remington Annex Modification of Standards, MOD120002 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 16, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gino Campana Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Jennifer Carpenter Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner Brigitte Schmidt Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Butch Stockover 2 1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: Let’s jump right in to our very first item, the Remington 2 Annex modification of standards request. Could we get a staff report please? 3 MS. COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications: 4 one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district density standards, one for NCB 5 rear lot floor area ratio standards, one regarding the NCB dimensional standards, and two 6 relating to the historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the 7 existing structures, and combine the lots, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street, constructing 8 one multi-family building with thirty studio units, eight one-bedroom units and four two- 9 bedroom units, for a total of forty-two units. Additionally, to meet the parking requirement, the 10 applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage with one level at grade and one below grade 11 providing a total of sixty-five parking spaces. 12 As you can see from this zoning map, the parcels are located in the NCB zone district, 13 and they are also part of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. This is the 14 approximate location of the site in regard to the Laurel School National Register Historic 15 District. All three subject properties, 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street are located within the 16 boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980. Two of 17 the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register 18 intrusions when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 block of 19 Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the District. 20 The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible 21 for local landmark designation; however, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as 22 the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in 23 August of 2011. 24 The first modification is to Section 4.9(D), Density. This standard requires that buildings 25 in the NCB district have a total lot area equal to the floor area of the project, a one to one ratio. 26 That is to say, a 19,897 square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area. 27 The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a total of 19,897 28 square feet. The first modification would permit the proposed multi-family development to have 29 an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet allowable per 30 the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density, exceeding the standard by about 31 94%. You can see from the proposed site plan, the lot density. 32 The second modification is to Section 4.9(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio. This standard 33 requires that, in the rear one-half of the lot, no more than 33% of the land can be devoted to the 34 gross floor area of the building and garages combined. The proposed rear floor area ratio on the 35 rear half of the site 2.28. The total lot area is, once again, 19,897 square feet and the rear half of 36 the lot contains 9,948 square feet. The second modification would permit the proposed multi- 37 family development to have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This 38 equates to 19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in the rear 3 1 half of the lot, per the standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33 2 standard by about 195%. You can see from this plan the rear floor area ratio and how much of 3 the proposed project would be in the rear of that lot. 4 The third modification is to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d). This standard requires that buildings 5 taller than eighteen feet step back the height in excess of eighteen feet, one foot per every two 6 feet beyond eighteen feet in height. As proposed, the structure is thirty-six feet tall. It is not 7 stepped back at any point from the interior side lot lines. You can see the project elevations here. 8 The fourth and fifth modification are to Section 3.4.7(B) and (E). These standards 9 require designated or individually eligible structures to be preserved and incorporated into the 10 project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed project does not preserve or 11 incorporate the project at all into the design. 12 Right here you can see a picture of 711 Remington Street. This is the individually 13 eligible structure. This is 705 Remington Street, and 715 Remington Street. Both of those 14 structures are not individually eligible but are part of the site. This is a photo looking northeast 15 to 711 Remington Street, and this is looking east across the street from the project site. This is 16 taken at the corner and this is looking at the project site. This is a photo of the alley between the 17 existing Collegio development and you can see the proposed site would be right there. This is 18 the property to the north, 701 Remington Street, and, you can see right here, this would be where 19 the proposed project would be. This is the Community Commercial zone district, this is the 20 NCB zone district, and this is the NCM zone district. 21 Due to the scale, massing, and overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School 22 National Registry District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of 23 the proposed plan because it is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with each of 24 the standards, nor does it substantially alleviate a city-wide, or substantially further other cited 25 City Plan policies. That concludes my staff presentation. 26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the Board have any questions of staff at this 27 point? Any clarification? Okay, let’s get to the applicant presentation. Would the applicant 28 please step forward and tell us about their project please. 29 MS. ROBIN BACHELET: There’s a sign in sheet, should I sign in? 30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, if you don’t mind. State your name for the record and sign 31 in please. 32 MS. BACHELET: My name is Robin Bachelet. I’m going to go ahead and sign in here. 33 Okay, again, my name is Robin Bachelet. My husband and I are proposing the Remington 34 Annex project tonight. Wanted to give you a little background on who we are and what we do. 35 Christian and I have lived here since 1996. We had a fee management business…residential 4 1 property management business from 1996 to 2005. We managed approximately 450 residential 2 properties; 65% of those were student housing, mainly in the vicinity of the University. Seventy- 3 five percent of those single-family dwellings were student housing near the University. We feel 4 like we’re very well experienced in the student housing market. We have two different 5 completed projects today that we would deem to be successful. One is the Collegio building 6 which was referenced here, at 706 South College. It is a mixed-use building, it’s 37,000 square 7 feet. It has covered parking, retail, office, and then twenty residential units on the third floor. 8 We also have 1335 Elizabeth, which is the corner of City Park and Elizabeth, also a retail, 9 mixed-use, basically comprised of retail and student housing. Also, we would deem a successful 10 project. Residential is generally 100% leased. These projects, in our mind, are successful 11 because of the product that we offer. It’s a higher end studio, one-bedroom type component. We 12 like these, especially because they are, we feel, more manageable, less impactful. The student 13 that is interested in renting the studio apartment is serious about their studies, not interested in 14 partying. These are well managed, well maintained projects that seem to run along, you know, 15 without issue. We also have parent co-signers on all of our leases, which just adds to the 16 accountability. This is a proven product for us, it’s a product that we like and that we know, and 17 that we would like to build here. 18 We…having Collegio in the area, exactly mirroring the proposed project, there is a 19 synergy there that makes this project very worthwhile for us. We also have a significant, 20 obviously a significant, vested interest in the area. We’d like to improve the alley, we’d like to 21 provide more student housing, suit the needs. As was mentioned in the staff report, it is on the 22 fringe of the District, it’s about seven feet from the western boundary, and it’s about two hundred 23 feet from the University. This kind of project utilizes existing infrastructure, it’s close to 24 transportation. We’re about a block from the Mason Street Corridor. It’s easy for kids to ride 25 their bikes to school, less vehicle trips per day, you know, all of the things that we find promoted 26 in City Plan and the SHAP, or the SHAP study, and it’s also being considered in PDOD. We 27 believe this is the right project, and that it’s the right location, and that we’re the right developers 28 to do it. And, we feel as though the low vacancy rates and increasing student population and 29 other reports and statistics indicated in the SHAP, and other student housing studies, are really 30 sort of in sync and in harmony with this project that we’re proposing. We feel like the project 31 that we’re proposing is, you know, something that we are well-versed in managing. It inherently 32 relieves a lot of the impact to City services in keeping, you know, trying to keep those yards of 33 the student houses, and trash out of the yards, and the number of enforcing, let’s say, things on 34 the book like the three-unrelated rule, noise violations, things like that. Projects such as ours, 35 that takes the pressure off the City services. 36 I think it’s also important to point out that, based on the current LUC standards today, 37 without these modifications, we can build a twenty-three unit building. We could build twenty- 38 three units with two bedrooms. It wouldn’t be properly parked, it would be underparked, which, 39 according to neighborhood meetings that we’ve had, parking and traffic flows are a significant 5 1 issue and they would like us to address these. So, a project that we could build today with LUC 2 standards…within the LUC standards, would not be the product we want. We feel it would be 3 more impactful to the neighborhood. Two-bedrooms, we feel, invite more parties, more traffic, 4 more people. The one-bedroom, studio units tend to be extremely manageable. Again, 5 something that we’re familiar with, comfortable with, and have been doing for the better part of 6 ten years now. So, we’ve really chosen the more difficult route here, in coming into a Type II 7 review, rather than going the administrative route, because we believe deeply in this product and 8 this project, that it’s the right one for this area. We feel like we are in harmony with PDOD, 9 SHAP, Transit Overlay District, and I think, you know, in conclusion, I would like to state…put 10 out a few of the facts from a recent student housing survey that was done in 2011, CSU student 11 housing survey. Eighty percent of the students polled would choose to be within walking or 12 biking distance of campus, 48% would choose to be in close proximity to a bus route or other 13 transportation, 44% of those polled would choose to be in an energy efficient and safe structure, 14 and 75% of those polled would also choose to have parking available to them. So, again, the 15 right project in the right area is the forty-two unit studios, one-bedrooms, with sixty-five parking 16 places. 17 I think that it’s also important to look out into the future and to try and figure out what 18 this particular area might look like if it continues to deteriorate at the level that it is. There hasn’t 19 been a lot of investment in the area. We’ve invested in this area for about seven years. The 20 Collegio building was built in 2003-2004. We’ve watched that area deteriorate, continue to 21 deteriorate. We purchased these properties with the intent of building a beautiful project that 22 would serve a need and be a safe, long-term, sustainable housing opportunity for the large 23 demands that are being created by the University, and are largely going unaddressed. There’s 24 going to be ten thousand students added to the University rolls and they’ve only planned for 860 25 beds on campus. They are clearly looking to the community to provide student housing and to 26 fill this delta. So, that’s all I have tonight. I’d like to introduce my husband, Christian, who 27 would like to talk about the process and how we’ve gotten here. Thank you. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 29 MR. CHRISTIAN BACHELET: Thank you for this time. I’d like to thank P&Z as well 30 as the City for having this opportunity to speak tonight. Before this meeting, I guess, I was 31 looked upon as trying to play the bad cop in this delivery here, in this narrative, and I’ll try not to 32 do that so much. But, I wanted to start by really speaking to the Municipal Code, Chapter 14, 33 which is the landmark preservation, and, to highlight the manner in which this code was 34 executed and administered, and more importantly, how Chapter 14 impacts the integrity of the 35 historical preservation process and how in conflicts with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, in 36 my opinion. As we all know, the current three properties are in what’s known as the NCB, of 37 which two of them are listed as intrusion. 6 1 In August of 2011, 711 Remington was determined individually eligible. And, let me 2 just sort of step back a bit and just give you a little background of just how we got here. Prior to 3 purchasing the three properties, Robin and I received our first initial conceptual review staff 4 comments on January 26, 2009, in which Karen McWilliams confirmed that both 705 and 715 5 Remington are not eligible, but referred to 711 Remington as “the other property are probably 6 not eligible.” And, being that it’s a Type II review, it would be subject to LPC. Two and a half 7 years later, after Robin and I had decided to move forward with this proposed development and 8 putting our team together, we met with Karen McWilliams and Steve Dush to discuss the 9 eligibility of the three properties. Following that meeting, Ms. McWilliams provided new 10 comments that directly contradict her January 2009 comments. First, she said that 711 11 Remington would qualify for individual landmark designation, and, two, the proposal is a Type 12 II review and would be subject to P&Z review, and would not need to go to LPC for decisions. 13 Again, we’re having two different types of narrative coming from City with regards to this 14 process. However, two months later, in August of 2011, both the Director of the Community 15 Development and the Chair of the LPC made the determination that 711 Remington be deemed 16 as individually eligible. Now, this conflicts with the intent outlined in Chapter 14. What should 17 have happened was that LPC should have presented their recommendations to the City Council. 18 At that point, we too could have had our opportunity to refute the eligibility. That never 19 happened. As a result, this process has been tainted and now we find ourselves in this figure 20 eight process. Do we go in front of LPC? Do we not go through LPC? You know? And it just 21 goes around and around. And, as a result, it’s now deemed as eligible and we have no way to 22 refute this until today. 23 I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the LPC subjectively base their opinion on seven 24 criteria: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feelings, and association. According 25 to historical records, 711 Remington is described as irregularly shaped and we’ve realized that 26 there have been major alterations performed on this property, dating back to 1947, ’62 and ’63. 27 All three alterations are still visible today. The property is deemed as a duplex with a detached 28 garage and a shed located in the alley. These alterations are consistent with the intrusions within 29 the district. In other words, it’s been significantly modified. There’s the detached garage and 30 shed that sits on the alleyway there. 31 So, once it was deemed eligible, the process was then redirected back to LPC. So, back 32 and forth. As a result of the meetings…as a result of the two meetings with LPC, we, the team, 33 respected the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7 by providing LPC with renderings, and we had the 34 rendering there earlier. And, our intent was “is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent 35 feasible, that historical resources are preserved and incorporated into proposed development.” 36 That does not adversely affect the integrity of the historical surrounding. And I believe that our 37 rendering and the efforts done by our architects have proved that. Also…we also informed the 38 LPC that we, the landlord and developer, that we exercised the right that “no feasible and 39 prudent alternatives exist and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations or minimize 7 1 potential harm or adverse impacts had been undertaken.” In other words, we deemed this to be 2 prudent and feasible to reconstruct. 3 There were two meetings that we had with LPC, and both times we tried to have an 4 opportunity to refute the eligibility, and it was not…we were not heard. The one positive note 5 that came out of the LPC meeting, that it came to a vote that three board members, including the 6 Chair, voted to relocate 711. We had proposed to relocate the middle property, 711, to another 7 location there on Laurel Street, just east of that location, closer to Riverside. And, we did get 8 three board members to conclude, or to vote, to have it moved. So, the point I’m trying to make 9 is that this property, 711, is indeed an intrusion. 10 So, the example of Chapter 14, together with the Land Use Code, negatively impacts the 11 entire process by unwarranted hardships to the owners, all designed to slow down the process 12 and drive up the cost of redevelopment. LPC interpretation of Chapter 14 and the Land Use 13 Code adversely affects the fate of these properties. If local developers like Robin and I can’t find 14 a way to develop an infill boutique property, then the theory will be that we’ll have no choice but 15 to sell our properties to another landlord who will likely keep them as rentals. By doing so, the 16 Code enables any opportunity for local developers to address the needs of the community, and its 17 impact that burdens the surrounding neighborhood. Keep in mind that such actions only add 18 unwarranted cost to the City by staff having to enforce various codes and violations to land laws 19 throughout this district. That is why we are coming to you, Planning and Zoning, to help resolve 20 these differences. LPC’s interpretation of Chapter 14, again, only enhances this problem. One 21 major reason why certain sections of the district is turning into student ghettos, is because it’s no 22 longer prudent and feasible for owners to maintain their properties. Yes, we do have a low 23 vacancy rate, but at the end, landlords are able to get and maximize the rent from these 24 properties; but, unfortunately, these properties are very difficult to maintain. Not only do you 25 have property taxes, insurance, but the wear and tear and the overall maintenance makes it very, 26 very difficult. You can just go up and down that corridor and you can see one property after 27 another after another slowly being deteriorated. And, so, obviously, some of those pictures show 28 that. 29 So, we believe that the student ghettos will only continue to spread throughout the district 30 unless developers are given the opportunity to provide safe, affordable, sustainable housing near 31 CSU, providing a safe and secure environment with on-site management, energy efficiency, as 32 well as providing basic amenities such as parking, internet, washers and dryers, and, encouraging 33 residents to walk to Mason Corridor, CSU, and Old Town. If such proposed projects are 34 discouraged, then developers will have no choice but to switch their projects further away from 35 CSU and Old Town, like the proposed student housing north of the Poudre River. Such projects 36 will impose unwarranted burden on the existing infrastructure. Infill development will pull 37 students out of the districts; Collegio is a testament of that. And, in doing so, it will encourage 38 tenants to go into quality products that produces quality behavior. Again, quality product will 39 produce quality behavior. So, I know this is very difficult to raise these issues before you 8 1 tonight, however, this process that we have had to undertake over the past years has created 2 undue cost, stress, and hardships, all of which is unnecessary. We believe in Old Town and we 3 believe in historical preservation; however, the market has spoken, and I hope you can receive 4 my comments as constructive criticism in this process. Thank you so much for your time and I’d 5 like to introduce Justin Larson. 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 7 MR. JUSTIN LARSON: Justin Larson, I’m architect of record with Vaught Frye Larson. 8 Our office is at 401 Mountain. I would also like to add that I’m a resident of downtown, or 9 downtown Fort Collins for the last twelve year. I live, fortunately, just outside the Laurel School 10 District so I wasn’t deterred when my wife and I decided to remodel our house. 11 We are enormously proud to be part of this project. I do think that, in contradiction to the 12 statement earlier, that this does not fit the language and intent of the adopted codes, I believe this 13 is, again, the right project, and is a great fit. And, we’ll start to talk through that. I want to step 14 back for a moment, Jeff, if we can, and run through a little bit of the site context. I know you 15 guys have seen the pictures and I’m hoping that many people…I believe we have residents here 16 tonight and, hopefully, you guys have had a chance to walk through the site. But, this is standing 17 across the street looking directly on the project. We’ve had the benefit, as we’ve been going 18 through the process, to meet with City foresters and talk about the trees and landscaping. You 19 can imagine the difference even this scene has as the full foliage and everything takes on. It’s 20 easier to see a lot of the structures, but these are quite heavily lined…tree-lined streets. The 21 structures across the street are buried in materials. You’ll see lap siding, to stucco, to brick, 22 some structures that are two and a half to three stories tall there, and some structures are one and 23 a half stories tall. As we click through and we look at the alley side, this is the…we’re kind of 24 walking down heading south on the alley, Collegio is just to my right, and then as we turn 25 around, here is Collegio which is in the…it’s zoning, that structure’s about three and a half 26 stories. By the way it’s zoned, that could have been a five-story structure. So, I think one of 27 the…I think the tasks that the City has, and Planning and Zoning has, is to not only look at where 28 we’re at today, but where is the City of Fort Collins headed, and where will, based on zoning, 29 things start to develop. So, as we walk through this, be mindful of how the City is, and will be, 30 developed. This is Kensington, it’s just across the street. This is a three and a half, about, is it 31 forty-seven feet? Four stories. And, is it forty-seven Jeff? I think it’s at forty-seven feet, it’s 32 about ten feet higher than the structure we’re proposing. 33 Now, the other thing that’s been a…I think a good compliment to Robin and Christian 34 and everybody that’s involved in the project, is how it’s developed, both through informal and 35 formal meetings and getting feedback. So, here’s some renderings of early conceptual drawings 36 looking at how this would start to fit and how it’s developed of each time, feedback where, you 37 know, a lot of the terminology…step back one, Jeff. A lot of the terminology of saying, this sole 38 project that is a forty-two unit mass, reads like some of the early conceptual ideas. But, as we’ve 9 1 gotten feedback and really looked at, how do we develop the architecture to kind of follow the 2 City Plan and follow the character…and, as you see, the next slide, to say that, well, if we break 3 it up into three individual buildings and how, if we be mindful, in the next slide, of setback and 4 spacing and the character of the street, the elements that are, again, incorporating the masonry 5 that you see across the street, the stucco that is on our site and adjacent, the lap siding, the 6 change of materials that, although we are proposing…we’re developing three lots and a project 7 that, at one time, is going to not only solve both energy, life safety, and kind of some needs that 8 are in the area…and I can talk more to that. But, that, in implementation, this really would be, 9 visually to the street, and the way that you experience as you walk through any downtown site, 10 three buildings that are interlinked by a connected parking structure and everything, that’s set 11 back beyond it. 12 We step to the next slide…and this is…a comment was made of, that we’ve heard several 13 times, the concern with planting the trees that are existing along Remington, and on our site, of 14 being mindful of, that we’ve met with City Forester, we’ve incorporated the site plan layout to 15 keep all the trees that are in good health and then bring in more. So, when we’re showing 16 images, the…it’s harder to understand the architecture if we show what the landscape material 17 along the street is, so we’ve taken the liberty to remove, visually, the existing treescape, 18 primarily for visual understanding. But, recognize that the slide before is really, when the 19 project is in completion, how our building will be perceived from across the street. Now, the 20 next slide. 21 Robin mentioned that this is in the PDOD district that is currently just in draft form. 22 And, I really want to commend the City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning, that this is going 23 to be a helpful tool in order to help infill along borders to CSU as well as downtown. If this were 24 implemented the way it’s in draft form right now, we would meet, with being very conservative 25 in our review, we would meet seventy-four of the forty-five required points under that guideline. 26 Some of those are on the community side, with adjacency to transit, to school, to public 27 resources. Others are on the environmental side with the fact that we have…all of our on-site 28 detention is being handled, we have a rainwater…we have incorporated rainwater system in the 29 front, the use of recycled materials of…also, because Robin and Christian are long-term owners 30 so they are very concerned with the energy modeling and how efficient, and that, if we were to 31 move forward, this would meet LEED certification. So, all those steps that are, I think, again, 32 how buildings should be built and why we’re extremely proud to be involved with this project. 33 If we step to the next slide, now as we get into the variance requests, the…again, a lot of 34 these in the PDOD would be part of the process, because the way this is laid out really lends 35 itself to being…we’re on that fringe between commercial development and residential. And, so, 36 we’re really looking at this from an urban standpoint, of how do we make that transition, and 37 how do we give good articulation. So, in order to give this building a lot of break up in 38 dimension on all elevations, that the requirement on building setback…if we step to the next 39 slide…you can see, what we’ve done, is taken several sections along the building, and several 10 1 completely conform, and several do not. If you look at the average, which is the last image on 2 that slide, it is extremely minor, to the point of how it is not meeting the language of the Code on 3 setback. We believe that the articulation is critical, and more important than creating a uniform 4 side that all would…if you can imagine if the whole building fit that last slide. So, that 5 articulation gives the building definition. And, because, predominantly, we are north and west 6 side is facing an alley and a parking lot, that there isn’t , from a solar study side, it’s not 7 that…the shading of this is a detriment to the public either. Jeff, did you have any thing that I 8 kind of gleaned over on that? 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Could you speak…turn your microphone on if you’re going 10 to…we want to get this on the record please. 11 MR. JEFF HANSEN: There’s a statement in the staff comments that there was zero 12 setback to the building. I think these drawings illustrate that, you know, on the left we have the 13 building footprint at grade, and then at eighteen feet, according to Code language, we wouldn’t 14 be required to step back at all, and the building has already started to step back at points, you 15 know, at eighteen feet above grade. This next slice through the building is at thirty feet above 16 grade, and you can see significant setbacks, you know, along the side yards. And these sections, 17 you know, kind of show a vertical view that demonstrates that same thing. A few examples of 18 how we’ve provided varying setbacks on the north and on the side yards. 19 MR. LARSON: And, it’s that step back and articulation that allow us to have material 20 changes and scale that really fit the scale of the area. And, again, change is perception of when 21 you are walking at pedestrian level, how you experience buildings. Change is really what your 22 height and dimension of any structure is, as opposed to a flat plane that just runs off into space. 23 The next item is… 24 MR. HANSEN: Talking about the lot density and the rear yard floor area ratios. 25 MR. LARSON: Which, again, in the…there’s several kind of conflicts that the gull of the 26 comments that came out of, kind of, LPC and on to some of the other City language, describes 27 the intent to be able to control the massing at the front, relative to scale of the adjacent buildings, 28 move any large massing to the rear of the site. Now, that’s one of the goals, both in the City 29 Plan, as well as mentioned in the PDOD, as well as was some of the design feedback we got 30 from LPC. So, you know, it is a balance to which Code language you want to meet. But, in the 31 NCB, it would read that, you know, we’d have 0.33 percent on the back lot, which would not 32 lend itself, effectively, for us to be able to set the mass towards the back of the site. And, what I 33 think we’re really able to do is keep that scale appropriate to the street level and make a nice 34 transition to the back of the lot…meet parking, meet all of the requirements that we’ve heard in 35 public review. Jeff, do you have any additional items on that? 36 MR. HANSEN: No. 11 1 MR. LARSON: Let’s jump to the next. Now, this next few slides is going to articulate 2 the, I think, some of the challenges that Planning and Zoning is seeing, and the reason that the 3 PDOD is coming up. That overlay district allows for, I think, the intent of the NCB to better be 4 facilitated, so you wouldn’t need modifications like we’re asking for today. The commercial 5 district that is…sits right to our side, as I mentioned earlier, is…if you built that to the full 6 extent, that’s a five-story…you can imagine that, all the way down college, you know, twenty 7 years, and I love hearing, you know, people talk about in the ‘80’s when they bought their first 8 house out on Ticonderoga off of Lemay, that it was a dirt road that you drove there. Now, you 9 look at how that development has happened, and how do you forecast, you know, where are we 10 going to be in the next twenty years, and how do you have your zoning meet that growth 11 effectively? So, where we’re at with NCC, five stories. NCB, which is a transitional zone…and 12 I agree a hundred percent, it is a transitional zone, and should be a scale break to the NCM; 13 however, if you read through the requirements, and, if we go to the next slide, this is a quick 14 sketch of, according to Code, how that breaks out. And, I think the intent of that transitional 15 zone isn’t as effective as the language. So, you have, and here’s a great illustration as you see, 16 five story to the, you know, front-loaded three-story transitioning over, and then to the NCM. 17 The language, the intent of the Code makes perfect sense. The implementation in the actual 18 parameters starts to say, you know, why do I have a front-loaded building with a backyard to a 19 five-story commercial building. I don’t want to have my back yard to a restaurant’s grease 20 container, personally. 21 So, with the next slide, here’s how this project starts to infill that transition. And, I do 22 believe that, if you read the language, this is really starting to be the intent. And, in the premise 23 of the PDOD, this is exactly the intent, that we’re able to bring in infill and make that transition 24 where the alleys are safer, the pedestrian ways are better…we’re improving that whole flow, and 25 still being respectful to the adjacent neighbors that start to transition into the NCM. 26 Now, as we get into the…tying into the idea of being able to push that setback…this 27 image, and I think we’re getting feedback from a couple people that thought we drew this image. 28 This image is actually right out of…it’s kind of a compliment, I take it, that people looked and 29 said, we, this, you just drew this because this is your project. And, it’s like, no, this matches our 30 project, but this is right out of Section 3.4.7 of the this not this…where, you know, you can see 31 how the scale of the buildings are being maintained along the street, the mass is being set back, 32 as opposed to letting that mass be forward. 33 Now, when we look into the this not this, if we were to build this project exactly to the 34 letter of the law where we shift the bulk of the mass forward, we step the sides in, and we 35 maintain 711. This is a quick rendering of what that would be, realize that these take us a little 36 bit of time. Since we submitted to, our proposal, we did have time to continue to develop that, 37 and here is the project that would, again, be, as Robin talked about, with the twenty-three unit, 38 meet an administrative review. We don’t believe that this is the right project. This has got an 39 open parking lot in the rear. It meets everything in the language, so we won…great, it’s not the 12 1 right fit. It’s not the way that, we think, from an urban standpoint, people should be mindful of 2 how to develop along this line between the five-story commercial, and transition into two-story 3 and one-story residential. Jeff, as we’re looking at that, any other comments? 4 MR. HANSEN: This slide just describes what, you know, the scope of the residents that 5 would be there. One thing I would like to note is, you know, as you’re encouraging 6 development, you want property owners to take advantage of their site as much as they can. 7 And, even if you were to stick with the lot density standards, you know, you’re trying to promote 8 people to maximize the use of the lot, we would be aiming for a total square footage of the 9 building of 19,987 square feet or something. Because of all the other restrictions in place, we 10 can’t even reach that, because we’ve complied with the rear yard and the side yard setbacks, you 11 know, every aspect of the dimensional standards. The density standards of the Land Use Code 12 that we weren’t able to maximize the potential of this property. 13 MR. LARSON: Elevations to just kind of articulate, and again, 711 is about 500 square 14 feet sitting there in between the other two wings. And, again, the scale between 701 and on 15 down, is more contiguous with what we’re proposing than what would be if 711 remained. Now, 16 I’d like to introduce Jeff Johnson. 17 MR. JEFF JOHNSON: My name is Jeff Johnson and I’m an attorney with Myatt, 18 Brandes, and Gast in Fort Collins. I’ve been working with the Bachelet’s and Vaught Frye 19 Larson on this project. Tonight, I’d like to address a couple things. You know, this hearing is 20 for a modification of standards. You’ve heard now from the developer and their vision for their 21 proposed development, and little bit from the architect about the project plans that will be filed. 22 And, after tonight’s hearing, you know, we would have a year to file the actual plans. 23 You know, tonight, as you know, is a modification of standards, and there’s five stand 24 alone standards. What I’m going to address, primarily, would be the last two as they pertain to 25 Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, and Section B and Section E. And really what this is all 26 about is a request by the developers to relocate the property, 711 Remington. That is really what 27 they would like to do, is have a relocation. The original structure was built, records indicate, in 28 approximately 1880’s. It was about a five hundred square-foot facility, or home, single-family 29 residence. It’s subsequently been subject to a couple significant modifications: a three-car 30 garage, cinder block garage, which you saw in the pictures was added. And then, subsequently, 31 the single-family residence was converted to a duplex. What we’d like to do is focus on the 32 modification of standards. Under the Code 2.8.2, as you know, H, there are really four or five 33 different requirements that need to be met to grant the modification request to relocate. Not to 34 demolish, but to relocate this property, and to restore it to its original five hundred square-foot 35 structure in a more appropriate setting. One of the first standards is that, the grant, the 36 modification of standards, is not detrimental to the public good. We actually believe that this 37 particular request for relocation would advance the public good by allowing the particular site to 38 be improved and enhanced to modern Code standards. So, the code for, the standard for, a 13 1 modification of standards, is actually less, it’s a lesser standard, not detrimental to the public 2 good. But, we believe this actually advances the public good. 3 Another standard that…or consideration…that you need to find, is that allowing 4 relocation of 711 Remington will not impair the intent and the purpose of the Land Use Code. 5 Again, we believe that the relocation would actually enhance the intent and the purposes of the 6 Land Use Code. The Code, again, being a lesser standard, not impair…we believe it enhances. 7 Further, we believe that we meet the requirements that the proposed development, to be 8 facilitated by the relocation, would substantially alleviate and substantially address problems of 9 city-wide concern that are addressed in City Plan, zone districts, overlay districts, and, you 10 know, pending, under consideration, overlay districts, as well as the student action plan currently 11 being discussed. 12 This morning, in preparing for the hearing, I was looking forward to hearing from one of 13 the Bachelet’s consultants, a Dr. Koziol, who was, I felt was, and it was my understanding was 14 going to be able to come tonight to speak, but that didn’t work out, so we asked him to prepare a 15 letter for submittal into the record, you know, which I have, and, at this time, Mr. Eckman, if it’s 16 appropriate, I’d like to offer into the record a letter from a consultant of the Bachelet’s, and then 17 also, I have prepared, for the Board’s review, proposed specific findings. One of the things that 18 you’re charged with tonight, as you’re very well aware of, is to make specific findings as to why 19 the modification of standard…by granting the modification of standard, is appropriate. And, I 20 have prepared proposed findings for your review and consideration, specific findings. And, I’ve 21 also proposed some general findings of fact that I’m happy to use as discussion points, if you feel 22 relevant. There are ten copies there. May I continue? 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, in one moment. When we get material in the hearing, the 24 likelihood that we’re going to read it in a meaningful way is very, very small. I just need to let 25 you know that. And, you know, I think that our options are that, one, I mean if it’s material that 26 we’re getting at the hearing, that we would want everybody in the audience to be able to have an 27 opportunity to read as well. Or, you know, the Board may elect to take a recess to read it, or 28 even continue the hearing. I just want to let you know those are a couple things that will be 29 going through our mind. We haven’t seen it yet, how lengthy it is, but just so that you know, 30 kind of, what we’re faced with is a challenge when getting material this late. 31 MR. JOHNSON: All of those options are acceptable, so please feel free to take a recess. 32 If you do feel that you need to continue the hearing for some reason, we certainly respect that. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. 34 MR. JOHNSON: This is a very important matter, obviously, to the City, to the 35 neighborhoods, to the developer, so, you know, please, let’s take time to be thoughtful. 36 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. 14 1 MR. PAUL ECKMAN: I might also suggest that, with regard to this letter from City 2 Visions, today’s date. Before the Board receives…the other document, apparently has to do with 3 the findings for the modification of standards. 4 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 5 MR. ECKMAN: Which would clearly be a relevant document to submit to the Board, 6 though it may take the Board some time to study that document. If there’s any question about 7 relevance of any documents that are being presented to the Board, we’d have to discuss that and 8 decide whether those are relevant and should be made a part of the record or not. Or, if made a 9 part of the record, it may take a little advice from me as to whether they should be regarded or 10 disregarded in the context of this hearing. For example, a lot of the issues regarding the behavior 11 or decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission in deciding the eligibility really isn’t 12 something that this Board can deal with, that’s a decision that was made by the Landmark 13 Preservation Commission under Chapter 14, while we’re looking at the Land Use Code. 14 MR. JOHNSON: That’s not the intent of my discussion, so…and, again, when I woke up 15 this morning, I didn’t believe that I’d be going through this letter. I hadn’t seen the letter, hadn’t 16 read it, and thought I’d be listening, you know, to the speaker. And, unfortunately, we’re 17 reacting and doing the best we can, so please bear that in mind. Dr. Koziol is a resident of Fort 18 Collins, he’s a Colorado licensed architect and historic architect, as defined by the Secretary of 19 Interior. His resume is in the back of his two page letter, so it’s a three page submittal into the 20 record, and his resume is in the back. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy from the 21 University of Colorado, Master of Architecture, University of Illinois in 1986, Master of Urban 22 Planning and Policy, also University of Illinois in 1985, Bachelor of Arts in Cultural 23 Anthropology, University of Chicago in 1980. I’ll just focus on just a couple paragraphs in the 24 letter and, for the benefit of the audience, I’ll read the first paragraph. This is addressed Robin 25 Bachelet. “Mrs. Bachelet, at your request, I have reviewed issues related to the historic 26 significance and integrity of 711 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. As a licensed 27 Colorado architect, Secretary of Interior qualified historic architect, and degreed urban planner, 28 formerly AICP, I attempted to consider this property in a professional, holistic way. As a 29 preservationist, I might want to save this and other equally “charming” buildings, but, 30 professionally, I find that the current condition of the building and the context of the Laurel 31 Street Historic District, does not merit regulatory in situ protection. However, some form of 32 mitigation, such as relocating the structure, may contribute to the public good.” 33 There’s a paragraph, bullet point, original survey of eligibility. Another bullet point 34 entitled “Inadequate Argument for Reevaluation.” Third bullet point is “Eroded Integrity of 35 District Context” but, it’s really the last one that I felt most significant. It’s entitled “Bad Results 36 by Incremental Deterioration.” And, I’ll read that. “Finally, as a planner and Fort Collins 37 resident, I’d like to say, that while many might prefer a nostalgic streetscape along Remington, 38 policies currently in place through zoning and potential design overlays, will not result in this 15 1 outcome. A realistic look at Remington should convince anyone that current policies (without 2 new development) is leading to clumsy additions, often for egress from permitted rental units in 3 existing structures, haphazard surface parking configurations, and under-investment in building 4 improvements by absentee landlords. Denying reinvestment along Remington is more surely a 5 path to more incremental decline than to historic preservation.” The last paragraph of his letter 6 concludes: “Again, although I consider myself a historic preservationist, I must conclude that the 7 most appropriate outcome for this property, and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street 8 Historic School District, is to support reinvestment of Remington (at least the west block face) to 9 an urban design standard and an urban density that can support amenities such as high quality 10 housing, structured parking, and well-maintained grounds.” 11 Again, I apologize for the inability to have Dr. Koziol here this evening, but the letter, 12 which I read this afternoon for the first time, I think really was very much consistent with the 13 modification and request…the modification of standards, which, you know, again, emphasizes 14 the relocation, not the demolition, of this particular property. It’s not their desire to demolish it. 15 They’d like to relocate it. There’s been interest in the community in doing so, and we’d like to 16 continue those efforts in earnest, with the cooperation of City staff, to find an appropriate place 17 where this structure can be restored to its original five hundred square-foot, approximately five 18 hundred square-foot, footprint. But, first, we need the modification of standards to be able to 19 fully engage in that process. 20 And, secondly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the final development 21 plan has been well thought out, and it has gone through many revisions, listening to the feedback 22 of the City and the neighborhoods. But, it has not yet been submitted, and the project vision 23 would come back before this Board for Section 3.4.7 review, as part of the historic district. So, 24 the modification that we’re really…that I’m really focusing on this evening…is the request for 25 the relocation, which allows us to fully develop the infill site, which, according to…which is 26 consistent with the, you know, the opinion of Dr. Koziol. 27 Secondly, and I guess at this time, Mr. Chairman, do you have questions of me, or would 28 you like to take some time to review the letter? 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, at this point I think you should continue. I want the applicant, 30 for your team, to be able to conclude and then we’ll get to staff, and we’ll probably have 31 questions for both of you. 32 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, absolutely. And then, the second submittal were proposed 33 findings of fact, to kind of help guide the discussion, you know, through the relocation request 34 from the applicants’ perspective. And, really what we’re talking about is a balancing of the 35 public good, which, you know, you read about in staff’s report. We believe that, on balance, a 36 relocation of 711 Remington is in the public good, and advances the public good. This particular 37 structure, we don’t believe qualifies as a landmark eligibility property. That, to have landmark 16 1 designation, it has to have exterior integrity, plus it also has to be significant, both of those 2 requirements are per the Code. In fact, the Code says that before you get to the significance of a 3 structure, under Chapter 14-5, you have to find that the home has exterior integrity, which is a 4 composite of seven aspects, or qualities: the location, the setting, the feeling, and the association, 5 are four of those seven. And, we believe that 711 Remington, at its current location, which is on 6 the outermost fringe of the Historic District, and directly abuts a fairly high traffic commercial 7 alley, and it abutting the commercial, CC, zone district…we feel that that location is detrimental 8 to, you know, to the original historic value of this home in the 1800’s. Also, 711 Remington is 9 located directly between two properties that were listed in a nomination form in 1980 as 10 intrusions to the District. So, what we have is two properties on either side of 711 Remington, 11 which, in 1980, were listed as intrusions to the District, and they are now officially not eligible 12 for landmark designation by the City of Fort Collins. In the middle was the original 711, of five 13 hundred square-feet, that has, in essence, doubled in size with additions, backs to a commercial 14 alley. We believe that all those factors impact, negatively, the location, the setting, the feeling, 15 and the association of this property. 16 With regard to the other three aspects of exterior integrity: the design, materials, and 17 workmanship, we also submit that the home is, as modified, is flawed in that regard as well. The 18 three-car garage that was added on the back of the site in 1947 is a cinder block structure, and 19 when it was converted to a duplex, it also used a mix of materials and workmanship, that we 20 believe is not consistent with the original construction of the home in the 1880’s or 1890’s. 21 The ultimate question of exterior integrity, under the Code, is whether or not the property 22 retains the identity for which it is significant. We submit that the property is not significant and 23 it does not meet any of the requirements under Chapter 14-5. We believe that. The Chair of the 24 LPC and the Director made a finding that it qualified under finding number three, we believe 25 that’s misguided. But, for the point of discussion, if you were to agree that the property meets 26 that third requirement, and therefore has, you know, some significance, that’s one of the two 27 prongs for landmark designation. The other is that it has to have exterior integrity. It must 28 possess exterior integrity before it can be found to have significance. But, the ultimate question 29 of exterior integrity is whether the property has retained its identity. And, the Code…one 30 sentence from the Code: “ultimately, the question of exterior integrity is answered by whether or 31 not the property retains the identity for which it is significant.” If the property is found 32 significant because it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period of construction, or 33 method, which is one of the third prongs, possesses high artistic values…we believe that this 34 property, because of its extensive modifications and additions, and because of its location that its 35 set in, its feel, it doesn’t actually retain any elements for what it could potentially be found 36 significant. So, we’re here requesting the modification on two bases. You know, number one is 37 it’s not significant. In the alternative, if you were to find that it is significant, we request that you 38 find that it’s not, that it doesn’t have the exterior integrity necessary to be a landmark. With 39 regard…and that analysis, we submit, is directly relevant to one of the initial determination for 17 1 the modification, which is that the modification, the relocation, must not be detrimental to the 2 public good. We believe that it’s not because the property is not landmark eligible, in our 3 opinion. And, secondly, you would need to find that it doesn’t impair the intent and the use of 4 the Land Use Code. And, I assume that, I know you’re all familiar with City Plan. Briefly, some 5 of the policies that we believe that this project, as proposed, would facilitate, you know, provided 6 the modification for relocation is granted. It’s a target infill area, it’s a higher density locations 7 in the Code, in City Plan, it prioritizes targeted redevelopment. There’s a policy, again, 8 encourage targeted redevelopment and infill. There’s a policy 5.2 for target public investment 9 and…on the community spine. There’s a policy 7.7, accommodate the student housing 10 population, and, you know, this particular project at its location, basically directly across from 11 CSU, would fill, definitely, an unmet need, one which is the subject of significant study right 12 now with the Student Housing Action Plan. It encourages housing choice…so, there’s a variety 13 of City Plan policies that we believe this proposal actually specifically addresses, and does so in 14 a substantial way, to alleviate matters of city-wide concern, which is one of the matters that you 15 need to address, or consider. So, I guess, with that, I’ll conclude my remarks. I think next it 16 opens up to staff and public, and we’re available, and I would love the opportunity to come up 17 again if you find it appropriate, to address specific questions and to go through more 18 information. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Jennifer, go ahead. 20 MS. JENNIFER CARPENTER: Yeah, I would just like to get some really 21 straightforward clarification on this because my understanding is that we do not have purview 22 over whether or not this is eligible, and so, I don’t want to spend a lot of our time and effort 23 here…as eloquent as Mr. Johnson was on those point and these letter are. If that’s the case, I 24 would like to spend time based on the things we do have purview over. So, can we get…I would 25 really like to…we said it once, but I’d really like to clarify that and get it really straight, what our 26 purview is here tonight and what it is not. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, let’s ask Paul. 28 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think what you cannot do is decide whether something is or is 29 not eligible for historic designation. That’s something that is done under Chapter 14 by the 30 Landmark Preservation Commission. What, as I have tried to read through these proposed 31 findings while Mr. Johnson was speaking, and he may need to clarify this, but it looked to me 32 like, what is being asked of you in part A of this package of findings, is for you to determine that 33 it is not detrimental to the public good to relocate or, they talk about relocation, although 34 demolition is also certainly a possibility, or relocation to Omaha is tantamount to demolition. 35 And, I think that you are being asked to decide that it’s not detrimental to the public good, 36 because that’s one of the findings you have to make. Even in the face of the decision made by 37 the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Planning Director, that, even though that 38 happened, it’s okay, still, to relocate this, and that would not be detrimental to the public good. 18 1 That, I think, is what they’re asking you to decide. Is that correct? That’s the first step of what 2 you have to decide. 3 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Eckman, that is correct. And, the reason we’re…we focused 4 on the landmark eligibility standard is, we believe that, as part of the analysis of determining 5 whether or not is detrimental to the public good, you have to really look, practically, at what 6 we’re requesting to relocate. 7 MR. ECKMAN: Okay, the next part of that request…the first part, as you know, in every 8 modification that you do, you need to decide that it’s not detrimental to the public good. The 9 next part of this request is hinged on the idea of an important community need, one of the other 10 criteria for the granting of a modification. Embedded inside of that important community need 11 criteria, is the fact that you need to make a determination that it would not impair the intent and 12 purpose of the Land Use Code. If you read that provision about important community need, it 13 says that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without 14 impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. That’s where that discussion came 15 from…substantially alleviate an existing, defined, and described problem of city-wide concern, 16 or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project 17 would substantially address an important community need, specifically identified in the Comp 18 Plan, or wherever. And then, you have to do the how come part on that. You have to make a 19 finding as to how it advances that important community need and does not impair the intent and 20 purpose of the Land Use Code. Finding that it’s not detrimental to the public good, you can just 21 make that finding, without explaining how come. 22 The second part of their request has to do with the hardship approach, once again there’s 23 the finding that it’s not detrimental to the public good, but under the hardship approach, you 24 don’t have to worry about advancing the purposes of the Land Use Code, you only have to find 25 the property to be unique, and so forth. And their argument, if I am phrasing it correctly, is that 26 the uniqueness of this property has something to do with alleged misrepresentations made by the 27 City, if I got that straight. That’s what’s unique about the property that would justify the 28 hardship variance. Talked about inconsistent statements and the applicant, reason to believe, 29 relied on the City’s initial determination. I don’t know if they want to pursue that, or if they’d 30 rather pursue the other one, or if they want to pursue both. But, that’s what I read as I was 31 scanning this document as Mr. Johnson was speaking. Would you like to embellish upon that? 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, come on up. 33 MR. JOHNSON: Our intent is to focus on the first specific finding of fact and not the 34 second one, Mr. Eckman. 35 MR. ECKMAN: So, is it safe to say the Board can disregard that second one and just 36 spend its time…are you withdrawing that part of the request? The hardship part? 19 1 MR. JOHNSON: We’ll work through it. We’ll withdraw that for this evening. 2 MR. ECKMAN: Okay. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I didn’t hear you, what did you say? I’m sorry. 4 MR. JOHNSON: We will withdraw the second, the hardship, prong for this evening. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any 6 questions right now? Of Paul, really, to be able to get clarification. 7 MR. BUTCH STOCKOVER: I just had one quick one. There’s been quite a bit of 8 reference to the Plan Development Overlay District, relating to a city-wide concern or important 9 community need, but I think that we need to realize that that has been tabled because there’s no 10 consensus and we’re looking for more community input. So, that’s not a policy that we can look 11 at, in favor or against, because it’s still just opinion at this point. So, I think we need to be really 12 careful, would you agree? 13 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, that’s not part of the City’s law yet. I took it to mean that the 14 applicant was just trying to say that, if it ever should become part of the City’s law, they thought 15 they would comply with the PDOD. But, we have no way of knowing that until the law has been 16 established. 17 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay, thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else on the Board have questions of the applicant 19 right now? I’d like to get to public comment as soon as we can, and then we can come back and 20 ask more questions…I’m sure we will, of the applicant and staff. How do you all feel? Okay, 21 let’s open this up for public testimony then, please. If you’re here and you want to address the 22 Board on this issue, here’s how we’ll do it. We’ll kind of keep it orderly. Can I get a…raise 23 your had if you’re going to speak to this issue, please. That’s like six dozen people, that’s a lot. 24 Just joking. If you could come up to the microphone, line up…the way we’ll do this is, you’ll 25 get three minutes. Please step up, state your name and address for the record and please sign in, 26 and then let’s hear your comments please. Ted? 27 MR. TED SHEPARD: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind, for protocol 28 purposes…we used to have two podiums, but we don’t, and so it’s really important for the 29 second speaker to line up behind the first speaker, the third behind the second, so we don’t have 30 to wait for everyone to get up out of their seat and walk down to the podium. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good point, thank you. Feel free to step up and let’s begin the 32 public testimony please. 33 MR. STEVE MACK: My name is Steve Mack, I live at 420 East Laurel, about two 34 blocks from the proposed development. I also own five other houses within the Historic District 20 1 and, in short, I urge you to act on the recommendations of staff, that I find this proposal to be 2 inconsistent in terms of size, mass, and scope of the project, and inconsistent with the context of 3 that block face and the opposing block face. I also urge you to think about the fact that the 4 notices that went out only went out to the specified narrow radius, and that most other people 5 within the Historic District are uninformed about this project. Thank you. 6 MR. BRIAN BEGLEY: Hello, my name is Brian Begley. Through my LLC, I’m the 7 owner of 701 Remington, which is the immediate neighbor of the proposed project. You can see 8 how close it is there to the property line, so, if you’re looking for a victim of this massive 9 proposed project, you’re looking at him right here. So, I would just urge you to please follow the 10 letter of the Code, it’s the only thing I see protecting me here, plus my residents and their quality 11 of life. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Brigitte, go ahead. 13 MS. BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: Well, I would just like to make a general comment to some 14 of the citizens that are going to speak, because there was a lot of discussion by the applicants, I 15 think, about deterioration in the neighborhood and the District and that sort of thing. And I guess 16 I’d like to get some feedback from other people on, if you feel things have been deteriorating, 17 and what might change some of that. 18 MR. BEGLEY: If I could take a minute to address that. Yeah, I bought this in December 19 of 2010, and, yes, it was deteriorating, and that was the fault, in my opinion, of the previous 20 owner. In his mind, I think, he was selling it for investment purposes down the road and it 21 wasn’t worth his while to keep it up. In the last year, year and a half, with blood, sweat, tears, 22 and money, I’ve restored it to some degree of its former glory. It’s a 1908 house. It’s been a 23 four-plex for fifty years at least, so my property is not deteriorating. 24 MR. TIM FECTEAU: My name is Tim Fecteau, I own a property at 717 Mathews, which 25 is the same block but one street over. I was shocked to hear that I owned property in a ghetto, 26 myself. I mean, this is a Historic District. There are old buildings, some need repair, many are 27 being fixed up, but I try to keep mine up. I’ve seen the neighborhood come up, I’ve not seen it 28 deteriorate. This building is way too large. It doesn’t fit a Historic District, it’s a brand new 29 building. It just…it does not belong there, it’s too tall. The parking, I think, is a real problem. 30 Every student…I rent…my property has been a rental for students since the 1890’s. Every 31 student has a car, and every student that’s going to be in one of these buildings is going to have a 32 car, and they’re going to need parking out on the street, where it’s already short parking now. I 33 think the house that’s there is very historic. I was at some other meetings and they called it a 34 handyman house. Because a house was built in the 1880’s and had an addition put on in 1920, 35 does not mean that that addition is not historic either. I think it’s, I mean, every house evolves, 36 and it’s not just something that was first built when it was five hundred square foot, I think, if it’s 21 1 a thousand square feet now, the whole thing should be moved, if that’s what you guys decide. I 2 don’t think it should be, I think it should stay there. 3 What else? I think that this…I’ve lived in Miami a long time, and I saw this happen. 4 This is commercial encroachment on a residential district, and it starts just like this. Well, it’s 5 just this one block, here, and then all of a sudden, the person next to it wants it, and the guy 6 across the street wants it. If this happens, I will be here asking you for variances to build 7 something like this. I don’t want to see it happen, but that’s the precedent you would be setting 8 by letting this happen. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 10 MR. CARL PATTON: Carl Patton, I’ve owned the property at 515 Remington for about 11 forty years. I am a, what do you call it, slum lord…no, you said a different word. I would like to 12 first say that this neighborhood is not deteriorating, there are a lot of committed owners, whether 13 we live there or not, and I think it’s going up, thanks in part to the Landmark Preservation 14 Commission’s work. That’s my first point. 15 Let me also say that they’ve been consistent over my dealings with them for the past 16 fifteen or twenty years, and they’ve contributed significantly to the improvement of the area, and 17 to my cost in doing that on my property, which is fine. They did offer to move 711, but they 18 offered to move it to an alley, pretty much, in an industrial area with no real access. I would 19 welcome them providing alternatives for that move. The historic structure needs to be preserved 20 in a good way. I won’t go into the attack on the purview of the LPC, that’s been stated. My 21 final point is, pure and simple, too many units, not enough parking, traffic flow issues, destroys 22 at least with the proposal I read at 6:00 tonight, destroys the landmark property. Now, they are 23 again proposing to move it, which I would support. But, I don’t think that, as proposed, what 24 they want to do, while laudable, is definitely not unique. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 26 MR. BILL JENKINS: My name is Bill Jenkins, I live at 710 Mathews Street, and I’m 27 talking for myself as well as my wife, Barbara Liebler, who could not attend the meeting tonight. 28 I agree…I read…I had a chance to read the staff report and their recommendation, and I would 29 encourage the Planning and Zoning Board to go along with the staff recommendation and not 30 allow these modifications. It’s going from…it’s based on the scale, going from a neighborhood 31 that basically has long, narrow lots with single houses, to a huge three-lot, three-story building. 32 And, so, in the staff recommendation, they made notes about density, about the dimensions, and 33 the public good. There’s not a case for public good, from what I can see. The benefits to the 34 neighborhood, they haven’t been pointed out I don’t think, in regards to the standards. And, we 35 have these landmark preservation regulations, we have the Land Use Code, and we have the City 36 Master Plan for reasons, is to not let things go out of control in terms of architecture and density 37 and those kinds of things. My personal fear is that this block will turn into a neighborhood that 22 1 looks like Laurel, the north side of Laurel between Mason and Shields, which is a lot of new 2 apartment complexes going up, and a lot of commercial. And, the purpose of this neighborhood 3 is it’s a buffer zone, and I think we should keep it that way. So, once again, I would like to see 4 you folks go along with the staff recommendation and deny these modifications. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 6 MS. LINDA BLAKE: My name is Linda Blake, I’m a relative recent resident of Fort 7 Collins, and, when I learned about this, I was a little concerned. But, tonight, I’ve heard a lot 8 about code and law, and what the developer’s desire. But, I haven’t heard anything about the 9 residents’ rights in the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that there are people who have 10 invested significant money, and time, and energy and passion in some of the homes in the 11 surrounding area, and I would just encourage you to consider the rights of those people, in 12 addition to your weighing the value of the project relative to the developer. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, did you sign in? Would you please, for the 14 record. Thank you, go ahead and take your time. 15 MR. LARRY DUNN: Larry Dunn, 729 Peterson Street. We’re several blocks away from 16 this, but I’d like to speak to, I guess, the community good part. We’ve seen some interesting 17 development, in terms of people coming together in this area of town. We get together on kind 18 of a regular basis, like once or twice a month, and people from all of the streets, including that 19 area, and Remington and Laurel, and all of the streets that are adjoining us. And, we just feel 20 that it’s a nice mix, you know, we’ve got students, we’ve got older people, we’ve got people 21 with children. We’ve got a nice community mix, and bringing in a big infusion of students into 22 this mix of people…they’re probably not going to be there very long, who are coming in for one 23 year, two years, you know, maybe three years, to live there. To us, it’s not a benefit to our 24 community organization that we have. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. While he’s doing that, I just want to remind 26 everybody, please do sign in, it’s important for a lot of reasons. And, don’t steal the sign in 27 sheet. 28 MR. BEN KING: My name is Ben King, and I own the property at 601-603 Mathews 29 Street. It’s a duplex, and I bought that property in 1994, and it was deteriorating at that time. I 30 did a substantial amount of work then, and I’m actually planning to do more this year as well. I 31 do believe that that neighborhood is not deteriorating, I mean one property at a time may not 32 look so good, but, you know, people in their timeframe will kind of help bring it back I think. I 33 do agree with most everything that everybody else has said, and one of the biggest things, as far 34 as the size, the mass of that building, the density of the number of people living on that size of a 35 lot, and just the scale, don’t fit, in my mind, in that neighborhood. He was talking about it, you 36 know, being a buffer zone, but the buffer zone between College, or from College, really, in my 37 mind doesn’t really make…well, he was talking about, sort of, the down side. When you’re on 23 1 Remington, you see what’s on Remington, you don’t see what’s on College, so, as far as being a, 2 you know, seeing that buffer, I don’t think we need to bring it into the neighborhood any further. 3 And, I just don’t believe it fits in the neighborhood. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 5 MR. MARK ANDERSON: Hi, my name is Mark Anderson. I live at 704 Mathews, 6 about one block east of the proposed project. I’ve been living there fifteen years, and, like many 7 other people, I’ve actually seen modest improvements in the neighborhood, no real detriments. 8 A lot of people getting new roofs, new paint, window work, it’s a lot of little incremental things, 9 but it’s going the right direction. 10 My first point is, I think they actually made a little math error in their calculations of 11 FAR, on item three here of the allotment. They’re saying it goes from 0.33 maximum floor area 12 to 2.3. That’s actually a 700% increase, not a 199% increase, as represented. The way to look at 13 it is, the lot will provide…if you want to bring up the numbers, I can show you, but the lot will 14 provide for about 2,400 square feet, I think you had in the numbers, and they’re asking for 15 19,000 square feet. Okay, my apologies. 16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You’re fine, don’t worry about it. 17 MR. ANDERSON: It’s a common math error, people get percentage points and 18 percentages goofed up, but anyway, they are asking for seven times more lot area than the Code 19 really allows. Okay? 20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. 21 MR. ANDERSON: Other than that, I think it’s a beautiful building, but it’s just way too 22 big, way, way, way, way, way too big. Thanks for your time. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. What we’ll do is, staff will have some time to look 24 through what you just brought up, and then we’ll ask staff here, in a moment, to comment on 25 that. 26 MR. DAVE LINGLE: Good evening Boardmembers, hi Kristen, congratulations on your 27 appointment. I can tell you it’s a whole lot more relaxing being out here now. Just a few 28 comments, and I think some of your questions took care of some of the things I was going to talk 29 about. But, I guess, in general, you know, the emphasis of what you’re here for is for the 30 modifications, and the presentation from the applicant was sort of all over the place. Are they 31 going to go for equal to or better than, or a physical hardship, or the community-wide concern 32 issue, and that seems to be where they’ve landed. But, from my experience on the Board, that 33 was generally the more, the most, difficult to justify because it’s really hard when you look at 34 doubling the density, somewhere near 200% increase in floor area ratio, except maybe even more 35 than that, and then really no compliance at all with the other three standards. It’s kind of hard to 24 1 identify what community-wide concern is being addressed with those kinds of requests. And, I 2 think it’s incumbent on the applicant to prove to you that they have met that standard, as opposed 3 to you trying to come up with the justification why they have. That was always a struggle that 4 we had, and I’m not sure that they’ve met that requirement. While VFLA, I think, has done a 5 really good job in trying to make this massiveness of, you know, the project density and scale 6 and everything, as compatible as possible, it’s just, it’s really difficult to try to go from 7 something that would be allowed at twenty-three units, to forty-two units, and make it look 8 compatible. So, I guess those are my comments. One other thing, I understand PDOD hasn’t 9 been approved, but, in its current form, the two historic preservation standards would not be 10 waived, I mean that would not be something that would not have to be complied with. So, while 11 they might have some provisions allowed by PDOD on the first three modifications, it wouldn’t 12 help them necessarily on the other two. So, those are my comments. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 14 MR. LINGLE: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t…Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel, I live about three 15 and a half blocks from the project. 16 MS. INGRID SIMPSON: I’m Ingrid Simpson, actually used to be a member of your 17 Board. I don’t live in this area, I live north of town, but I own property on College Avenue. I 18 own those old houses next to the Book Ranch. This is a very difficult decision for developers to 19 decide where to put something that large. I know Robin very well, in fact we had the dental 20 office next to the big building they have on the corner of Laurel and College. And, the time that 21 was before the Board…well, it didn’t go before your Board, but…it was an administrative 22 one…we were pretty shocked by the size of it. And, to be real honest with you, it has had very 23 little impact on the dental practice. We don’t own that anymore. I realize, back on Remington, it 24 is residential, but I think one thing the City, and we as residents, whether you’re in the County or 25 the City, need to start looking at, are all these two and three-story buildings being popping up all 26 over town, that are being approved. For instance, the one on North Grant that badly affected that 27 neighborhood. And, unfortunately, that isn’t decided to be a historical area. I grew up on the 28 corner of Washington and Laporte. That house is way over a hundred years old, it’s never been 29 looked at as a historical building. So, you know, this may not be the proper project for that 30 particular area, but I can tell you, that eventually, those areas are all going to get changed 31 because the city is growing and growing, and there’s the desire to have more nice, high rise 32 buildings, which is kind of sad in a way, because people move here for the small town 33 atmosphere and, quite frankly, to be able to see some mountain between the buildings. I don’t 34 know whether this is a good or a bad project, I think it’s much nicer on that corner, what they 35 have designed, than they had on the corner of Laurel and College. But, I do agree that the house, 36 the historical building, should be moved, and there should be someplace that’s equitable to the 37 Landmark Commission and to the developer. And, since that’s the main reason that we’re 38 looking at this tonight, I would propose moving that. Thank you. 25 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 2 MS. RUTH ROLLINS: Good evening Boardmembers, my name is Ruth Rollins, and I 3 live at 5029 Crest Road, outside of the area, but I own properties within the area, also outside the 4 area in the Historic Laurel School District, and down the street on Remington. First, to address 5 Brigitte’s question, I lived on Remington Street in 1983 when I was a CSU student, and the 6 neighborhood looks pretty much the same. You know, there are some houses that are nicer, 7 there are some houses that, you know, have lots of bikes in front of them, and lounge chairs, and 8 that kind of stuff, but it hasn’t deteriorated at all. I didn’t realize it was a ghetto, and believe you 9 me, when my mother came up here with me, if she thought it was a ghetto, I never would have 10 lived on Remington Street, ever. My main thing, you know, and I’m not a historic preservation 11 huge advocate, but I do have an appreciation of that house, that small house. I’ve always thought 12 that that was kind of unique. Whether it’s…hopefully, it’s not ever torn down, and, at the most, 13 relocated to a location that might be more appropriate. 14 My big thing is the square footage. To me, this a rezone through modification of 15 standard. I don’t know how you can double square footage and call that a modification of 16 standard. It’s just too huge, significant, and out of scale. Really, what they’re asking for is to 17 rezone this, and I think that’s inappropriate in a buffer. I just think that this is incredible, that 18 this was allowed to get this far, but staff probably doesn’t have a way to stop it before it gets 19 here. Anyway, I’m greatly opposed to it. I do think the look of it is nice, nicer than a rendering 20 that we got early on, but the density is just phenomenally out of scale. So, thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MS. ROLLINS: You’re welcome. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Don’t steal the pen. 24 MR. STEVE STANDERING: Hello, my name is Steve Standering. I own property at 25 808 Mathews and 301 and 303 East Plum, have since the ‘80’s. I’ve seen no degradation in the 26 neighborhood whatsoever. My rents have gone up consistently, and I’m sure everybody else’s 27 have too. The only property that isn’t kept, are the three properties in question. If the landlords 28 would make some effort to keep them up, that would be nice. We have no need for rabbit hutch 29 houses, quite honestly you’re not going to get cream of the crop when you appeal to the lowest 30 common denominator. And, to pack that many people into such little spaces is inappropriate. I 31 would hope that you would not consider this development. Thank you. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else want to address the Board on this issue? 33 We’re soon going to close…I’m sorry, not yet, no, I’m sorry. I’ve got to be able to make sure 34 we follow the process we have laid out by the Land Use Code. Anybody else from the public 35 like to address the Board on this issue? Alright, we’ll close the public testimony at this time. I 36 want to see if the Board needs to take a break. Does the Board need to take a break or do you 26 1 want to continue on? Alright, we’ll continue going. So, here’s what we’ll do, is we’ll probably 2 ask a couple questions of staff, and perhaps even the applicant, and, at that point, we may be able 3 to get some of your feedback, if that’s okay. Real quick, staff, you want to tell us your 4 comments or thoughts about what you heard, any specific points that were addressed or brought 5 up in the public testimony. 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: I believe Paul Eckman covered most of my points, in terms of the 7 public testimony by Mr. Mark Anderson regarding my map on the second modification, my 8 iPhone calculator app is malfunctioning, so I’m not able to doublecheck my math on that, but I 9 could get back to you to ensure that those numbers are correct, that are in the staff report. I had a 10 Zoning inspector check those over and he did concur that those were the correct calculations; 11 however, I’m more than willing to go back and revisit those to ensure accuracy. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, any other comments from staff, Paul? 13 MR. ECKMAN: My only comment is that the…after public testimony, according to our 14 order in our Land Use Code, the applicant response comes next, and finally the staff response to 15 both the public testimony and the applicant response. 16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, then I made an error. I apologize. Would the applicant like 17 a chance to come up and refute what they’ve heard, or comment on what they’ve heard. 18 MR. BACHELET: I just wanted to say a few things, and clarify a few things. Right now, 19 as it stands in that Remington corridor, 18% are owner-occupied, 80% are currently rentals, so I 20 just wanted to make that clear. There also hasn’t been any discussion from public in regards to 21 the negative impact of the Kensington property, which actually exists on Laurel and Remington. 22 That project is a lot bigger than what we’re proposing, yet it has no parking and no amenities. 23 Yet, no one speaks about the negative impact that that property may or may not have on the 24 community. And let me add one final though…one more thing, too, if we went through a Type I, 25 we’re allowed to have twenty-three two-bedroom unit, that’s forty-six…I don’t think I need an 26 iPad calculator to figure that one out. But, that’s forty-six tenants, we’re only proposing about 27 the same. And, finally, my sister-in-law came to visit over the holidays, and she brought her 28 brother who went to CSU about twenty-five years ago. And, he took his family out there, he 29 wanted to show his kids and his wife where he went to college. Went around the Laurel District 30 area, I didn’t tell him where to go, but that’s where he went, and his first comment was, wow, 31 this place looks really tired, nothing has changed. So, again, I do think there are sections of the 32 District that is deteriorating, that is in need of a facelift, and there are other parts of the District 33 that are doing fine and preserving what they intended to do. So, I just wanted to make that clear. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, you bet. 35 MS. BACHELET: Just one point of clarification. The forty-four units has sixty-five 36 parking places, covered, and subterranean. The Type I review that we can build, that is twenty- 27 1 three two-bedrooms, would have twenty parking places, so it would be significantly 2 underparked. But, yet, it falls within our ability to build within the Land Use Code under a Type 3 I Administrative Review hearing. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Alright, the applicant, you can continue if you have 5 other members of your team that would like to step up and comment. Mr. Johnson, go ahead. 6 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, and thanks for the, you know, the feedback from the 7 audience as well. These are tough issues, and we knew it would be, and it always is. Your 8 Board is no stranger to differing opinions, no doubt about that. You know, really, the focus and 9 the heart of the matter for tonight, in my opinion and the applicant’s opinion, is the modification 10 of standard to allow a relocation. We’re allowed to proceed on multiple stand-alone 11 modifications, which we have done tonight. But, if the Board, you know, finds…the Board can 12 find one or all of the modifications appropriate, but, if you were to consider one, just one, 13 modification tonight, it would be the request for the relocation. The issues regarding the density, 14 and FAR and setback would ultimately be determined and brought before the Board again, 15 perhaps in a different form, perhaps not, but it can come back before the Board. So, the granting 16 of the modification for the relocation does not impact further discussion, public discussion, staff 17 discussion, and interaction with the neighbors and the development. On the ultimate scope of the 18 proposal, the Code allows applicants to come forward with modification requests before they file 19 their final plan, and you can get the feedback in this form, as difficult as it is. 20 With regard to the modification on the relocation, the proposal is to relocate…a 21 modification of standards to relocate 711 Remington from its current position, which again, is 22 located between two intrusions to the District, on the outer fringe of the Historic District, and on 23 the west block side of Remington. We respectfully submit that the relocation of this…and 24 restoration of this project, would improve the home for the future, at a different location. It 25 would dress up and improve the neighborhood by removing two intrusions, and one home that 26 has been substantially modified in a manner that, we submit, does not convey its original 27 integrity. 28 We believe that, with regard to the community-wide standards, that a proposal of this 29 nature specifically addresses an unmet need in the city of Fort Collins, and that is for student 30 housing. It’s appropriately located for student housing, close to student services, across the 31 street from CSU, close to the Mason Corridor. All of those are important community assets, and 32 increasing the density around campus, we believe, will actually enhance the neighborhood. And, 33 we consider this property adjoining a commercial alley, although it is part of the District, it’s the 34 outer fringe of the Historic District. When I drive, or bike, through the Laurel Historic District, 35 and that neighborhood, whether it was a historic district or not, the commercial alley right there, 36 abutting mixed-use developments…I don’t think of that as part of the residential development. 37 We think it’s highly appropriate at that particular location. Thank you. 28 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 2 MR. LARSON: A couple points, architecturally, that, you know, recognize that the 3 development that’s proposed is doing two things. One, maintaining all the pedestrian along 4 Remington, being that there’s sidewalks, porches, everything is in context to the adjacent. What 5 we’ve done is bring in the…what doesn’t exist, which is adequate parking, safety, and, through 6 traffic studies, all these pieces, to incorporate that on the commercial side. So, I think peoples’ 7 concerns are valid. We’ve heard concerns earlier, about, kind of, traffic flow and size, and how 8 will that be addressed, and that is the intent and the result of what we’ve put together is…here’s 9 how we’re keeping vehicle traffic off of Remington and back towards the College, commercial 10 side. Scale, that was mentioned several times, is in…you know, we’re at two and a half to three 11 stories, which, as you look at 711…my compliments to Brian, is a beautiful revamp of that 12 structure. That is a two and half, three, story building, so we’re right in the same…our proposal 13 is following that same context and scale. Pedestrian along Remington, automobile off of 14 College. Thanks. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the applicant have any other comments you 16 want your team to address. Again, I apologize for my procedural error there, want to make sure 17 you guys get a good chance to come back up and talk. Anything else? Okay, alright, thanks. 18 Let’s go to staff real quick, just if there’s any response from the staff to either the public 19 testimony or what we just heard from the applicant, as far as their response. 20 MS. LEVINGSTON: We have no response. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, yeah Brigitte, go ahead. 22 MS. SCHMIDT: I’d like to ask one question, just because I’m a little bit unfamiliar with 23 this. Is this district the only district that we have in Fort Collins, and, sort of, what is the 24 implication to being a district versus just being individually, you know, a house here, a house 25 there sort of thing. 26 MS. KAREN MCWILLIAMS: This is not the only district in Fort Collins, it is one of 27 just a couple that we have. This is the Laurel School National Register District. It is designated 28 on the National Register of Historic Places and on the State Register of Historic Properties. We 29 also have the Old Town Historic District, which also is a National and State Register District. 30 And then Fort Collins has a couple of small, Fort Collins landmark districts. The difference is 31 that, if you are in a designated landmark district, such as the Laurel School National Register 32 District, those residents, people that own property within the Laurel School National Register 33 District, get financial incentives. One of the major ones being a 20% state tax credit for any of 34 the work that they do to the buildings on their property. And, they actually receive that benefit 35 by virtue of being designated in the Laurel School National Register District as contributing 36 buildings to that District. There’s also State Historic Fund grants that residents or owners of 29 1 property in that area can take advantage of, and a few other various financial incentives that, 2 again, accrue to them by virtue of their designation. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Does it affect the District in any way if certain properties change in 4 character, and then…or, do they eventually change the boundaries. Would it be reevaluated, 5 let’s say, as one person worried, that maybe we would have, after this project, some other 6 projects. At what point, what is the tipping point for the District designation? 7 MS. MCWILLIAMS: We don’t define the National Register Districts so those 8 regulations, or their way of looking at it, would be how the National Register would look at it. 9 But, indeed, every time a property is demolished or relocated out of it, or inappropriately 10 changed, that is located within the District, that degrades the District and then becomes, 11 typically, a non-contributing element to the District. So, you can have buildings that formerly 12 contributed to having a District, and then, at a certain point you do, you run out of sufficient 13 properties, or even sufficient properties within an area, and then, either the District goes away or 14 the boundaries end up being changed. 15 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you, that helps. 16 MR. GINO CAMPANA: What was the LPC’s position on the relocation? 17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Landmark Preservation Commission heard some testimony 18 about two different potential locations. One of them was located near the…near Cowan Street, 19 in that location, and near the fast food restaurant that’s there…Hardee’s…I can’t think of what it 20 is right now. But, kind of in that general vicinity, and that was really not discussed at any depth 21 by the applicants, and so the Commission really didn’t focus on that one at all. The other one 22 was a proposal for the property at 901 East Laurel, and the Commission did talk somewhat about 23 that property. The building would have been located on the back of the lot behind the existing 24 house. It would be located along a pedestrian pathway that’s used also as a drive for the Laurel 25 Elementary School that’s that way, but it’s a private drive that’s closed off much of the time. 26 And, there was little information presented as to the character of the neighborhood, or how the 27 building, if it were to be relocated to this spot, would retain the sufficient integrity to be, still, 28 individually eligible, which is the requirement, that the Landmark Preservation Commission 29 needs to find. So, if a building is relocated into an area that does not retain its individual 30 eligibility to still be designated, then the Commission has to turn it down. 31 MR. CAMPANA: I got the feeling from reading the minutes of the meeting that they 32 weren’t as concerned with relocating it. They were okay with relocating as long as they could 33 find a location, as you said, would allow it to continue to be eligible. Am I thinking correctly on 34 that? 35 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I think the Commission would be willing to consider the relocation 36 of the building, they would need to find a location that, again, retains that building’s individual 30 1 eligibility and does not, by the fact of its being relocated to a different parcel, impact those 2 buildings’ eligibility. 3 MR. CAMPANA: So, they would never make a decision that it’s okay to be relocated 4 without having a location for it to be relocated to? 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Actually, the motion made was to the effect of…they turned down 6 the relocation of the building. I can actually find the motion here for you and read it to you if 7 you would like. But, the motion was flat out, we find that we do not want to relocate this 8 building. And, the motion passed five to three. 9 MR. CAMPANA: Do you think that was because of the location it was being moved to? 10 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I don’t know. There was a lot of discussion about the integrity of 11 the building once it’s moved, and how moving a building affects its eligibility to be designated 12 on the National Register, once it’s moved, or for State or local designation as well. 13 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, and on our purview here, for what we’re looking at tonight, are 14 we looking at the relocation to a specific location, or just being able to prove that it can be 15 relocated. 16 MR. ECKMAN: You’ll have to ask the applicant, I think, but I couldn’t tell any 17 relocation to a specific location, but, in addition to that, I’m not sure that the relocation 18 itself…you’re being asked to modify the standard of the Land Use Code that contains a couple of 19 requirements: 3.4.7(B) talks about, since this has an eligible, Landmark Commission has 20 determined to be eligible, property on it, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development 21 plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic 22 structure. I think that’s one of the problems that the applicants have, is with that language. Over 23 on the next page, under paragraph E, dealing with relocation or demolition, it says that the 24 building may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the Board 25 in this case, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, 26 structure, or object in accordance with the standards of this section, and the preservation of the 27 site, structure, or object is not feasible. So, I’m not sure how the relocation…I could stand to 28 have some more explanation by the applicant about how the relocation fits in, or if it’s just the 29 language about this preservation not being feasible, is what the applicant wants to erase from 30 your consideration, because of the important community need, and so forth. And, on the prior 31 page, the language about the adaptive use of the historic structure, maybe that’s really what the 32 applicant wants to take out of the equation because of the important community need, with 33 regard to that paragraph. There are two paragraphs, B and E, that they’re seeking modifications 34 for. 35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me ask real quick…we could always, I mean one of the 36 options for the Board is to condition the approval of a request to modify a standard. Is that true? 31 1 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Gino, did you want to hear from the applicant, any 3 clarification on that? 4 MR. CAMPANA: It would help me out, yes. 5 MR. ECKMAN: Also, while they’re thinking about that, the culinary expert that I am, 6 that restaurant is Carl’s Junior. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks, yeah, come on up. 8 MR. JOHNSON: With regard to the request for relocation, 3.4.7(E) is entitled 9 “Relocation or Demolition,” I’m sure you’ve all read it. But, I read the Code that a property 10 that’s individually eligible for landmark designation, and 711 Remington was determined 11 individually eligible for landmark designation by two individuals, the Director and the Chair of 12 the LPC. So, this property may be relocated or demolished, only if, in the opinion of the 13 decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, tried to preserve the site and 14 the structure. What this Code provision does, is it allows P&Z, is my reading of the Code, to 15 grant a relocation. And, as you did correctly state Mr. Smith, that the Code allows P&Z to 16 condition an order, or an approval, whether it’s a modification or otherwise…any sort of a 17 provision. So, you know, what the applicant desires to do is relocate this property to a more 18 suitable location. A couple of locations have been suggested and Ms. Bachelet would like to talk 19 about, I guess elaborate, a little bit about the LPC hearing and what was presented, if that’s 20 acceptable. Go ahead. 21 MR. CAMPANA: I was going to say, what would really be helpful, to me, is…since we 22 can’t really change a decision that was made by the LPC, I’m not sure it’s going to be valuable to 23 us to have a better understanding of that process. What would be helpful is, you know, for us to 24 rule on the relocation, we have to believe that, in our opinion, the applicant has, to the maximum 25 extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure, or object in accordance with the 26 standards of the section. So, that’s really what I’m curious…tonight, I want to hear how you’ve 27 done that so that I could possibly form an opinion as to whether or not you have. 28 MR. ECKMAN: May I interject though. It sounded like what you are thinking is of a 29 way for the Board to determine whether the applicant has in fact complied with that paragraph. 30 If there’s compliance with the paragraph, there need be no modification to it. And, I’m sensing 31 the applicant is wanting the same thing, wanting to make a finding that the paragraph E has been 32 complied with because the preservation is not feasible. That’s not a modification request. So, 33 I’d like to see how that can be phrased into a modification request. What are we wanting to 34 modify in that standard, and not how are we complying with that standard…that would be an 35 entirely different question. 32 1 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, you’re right Paul, I’m sorry. We have to pick a direction to go 2 though. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, it sounds like the significant community need was what you were 4 arguing. 5 MR. JOHNSON: That was one of the prongs under the modification of standard, correct. 6 But, it terms of Mr. Eckman’s comment about what we’re asking to be modified, what we’d 7 like…the bottom line is we’d like to relocate the property and it’s been quite a process to get 8 approval, even conditional approval, to do so, and to address that matter because the property is 9 individually eligible. And, you know, ultimately, maybe there’s a process, we could get before 10 City Council to determine whether this is landmark worthy or not. In lieu of that, we are trying 11 to find a prudent, feasible alternative to allow, what we believe is a proper development for this 12 location, and we happen to believe that it does advance many policies of the City of Fort Collins. 13 So, back to the modification of standards, if I were to ask that a certain section in 3.4.7(E) be 14 deleted, which I believe is what Mr. Eckman has requested, it would be a modification of 15 standards deleting the maximum extent feasible, so that the Board, in its discretion, subject to a 16 condition…a condition could be approval of the LPC as to a suitable location, if that’s what the 17 Board desires. But, a modification of standard to delete that section, and, I believe that would 18 give the Board the legal authority to grant approval for the relocation, again, with or without 19 conditions. And, is that responsive to your question? 20 MR. CAMPANA: Yes, thank you. 21 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now I’m thoroughly confused. When we’re talking about 22 deleting a standard, we don’t have the ability to delete a standard, so I don’t know what we’re 23 being asked to do. 24 MR. LARSON: Yeah, the correct term would be to modify that standard for this project, 25 and the reason that we’re asking that is…please recognize that, to relocate a building, you need 26 to negotiate with property owners, come up with an adequate plan that gives the LPC and the 27 City effective information. But, all of that has a cost burden and commitment that’s tied with it, 28 that, for the owner, if we went down this line on ten different pieces of property, and no matter 29 what we suggested, the relocation wouldn’t be approved, it wouldn’t be a very prudent approach. 30 What this would allow us to do is say, yes, relocation is okay, granted that you do these things. 31 But, we would at least know that we’re not constantly taking this bencher and spending dollars 32 and investing other community members into a process that will never go anywhere. 33 MS. CARPENTER: So, are you asking for a modification of standard? That’s the 34 question, for me, is, if you’re asking for a modification of this standard…I mean, we can’t just 35 make this go away in the Code, that’s not our job. So, are you asking for a modification of the 36 standard, and if so, then we have to have grounds to do that. 33 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, we are asking for a modification of standard, and, the grounds for 2 the modification of standard…first, you know, the requested modification can’t be detrimental to 3 the public good, it can’t impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and we believe that 4 we’ve satisfied those requirements. And, we also believe we’ve satisfied and demonstrated that 5 we’re addressing, substantially addressing, and alleviate city-wide, areas of city-wide concern, 6 and address important community needs as described in comprehensive plans and adopted 7 policies. It is a matter of public policy and, of course the discussions that are on-going, that 8 aren’t yet policy. It’s our belief that we have satisfied those modifications and that you could 9 grant us a modification to the standard, to the maximum extent feasible, we’ve attempted to 10 preserve this site, and allow us to relocate the property, that’s really what we’re asking for. And, 11 Mr. Eckman, if there’s any assistance you could offer, that would be great, or clarification for the 12 Board. 13 MR. ECKMAN: Well, like Mr. Lingle said, I’m not charged with the duty of presenting 14 the case. I think, though, that, in response to your statement, Ms. Carpenter, that the Board can, 15 in the process of granting a modification to a standard, almost eviscerate the standard. I think 16 that their request is to take paragraph B and paragraph E, and just take them out, because this is 17 an important community need, there’s no detriment to the public good, and it doesn’t impair the 18 intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. I gather that’s what the request is. 19 MS. CARPENTER: So, would you say that this Remington Annex Specific Findings that 20 was given to us tonight, that what they’re looking for is A one and two on this, and three. Is that 21 what you’re saying? 22 MR. ECKMAN: That’s right, they have withdrawn B, part B. 23 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, so, but, we kind of got confused there, and that was what I 24 was not really understanding what was going on, so, this is really what you’re asking for, the first 25 piece of this? 26 MR. JOHNSON: My apologies for the confusion, and in terms of…to build on what Mr. 27 Eckman said, to, I guess, to eviscerate Section 3.4.7(B) and (E), with condition, and that would 28 be the relocation of 711 Remington. It’s very difficult to pursue, and to take the resources of the 29 applicant and the community and the City staff, to try to seek an alternative, an acceptable 30 alternative, unless you know the path you’re going down, relocation, is a viable, legal option. 31 And, right now, we’re told it is not. So, that’s what we’re asking for, and to the extent that we 32 want to eviscerate 3.4.7(B) and (E), it would be conditioned upon a relocation to an acceptable 33 site. 34 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now that I know what’s being asked of me, I really would like 35 us to take some time to be able to read this, we just got it tonight, and now we know what they’re 36 asking for. It would be useful to me to be able to go through it. 34 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we’ll do that in just a moment here. But, one thing I think 2 is important, I would like to hear from staff, Karen in particular, just on, what your thoughts are 3 about this conversation that you’ve heard over the past five minutes. 4 MS. MCWILLIAMS: One comment I would make is that the focus of this attention has 5 been on relocating 711 Remington. The crux of the matter is whether this project complies with 6 the standards of 3.4.7 in the Land Use Code, and the project overall still has an impact on 7 numerous other designated Fort Collins landmark, two of those, and buildings that are designated 8 on the National and State Registers, irrespective of 711. So, even if the applicants, or if the 9 Board were to say, go ahead and move 711, it’s unlikely that this project still would comply at all 10 with that standard, because you’ve got the buildings next door, the buildings across the street, the 11 buildings…all other ten buildings on that block, that are listed on the National and State 12 Registers, two of which are Fort Collins landmarks. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Can you elaborate on that a little bit, I’m sorry, I want to make 14 sure that it’s fully understood by the Board and everybody. I mean, it’s the impact of the 15 proposal as it is…what we see it now, adversely on other properties. 16 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Historic properties that are either designated as Fort Collins 17 landmarks or, in this case, on the State or National Register. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And, that was a finding…that was part of the discussion, I mean, 19 that was a finding in the LPC hearing? 20 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Yes, well, I don’t know if you would call it a finding, it was 21 certainly part of the discussion. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and that was the project itself, okay. 23 MR. ECKMAN: That’s a part of paragraph B, I suppose, that would not be wise for the 24 Board to eviscerate. It says, the development plan…it’s the last, about third of that paragraph. 25 The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and 26 architectural value of any historic property that is A) preserved and adaptively used on the 27 development site…that wouldn’t be applicable anymore, if it’s relocated, or B) is located on 28 property adjacent to the development site, and qualifies under one, two, or three above, which is, 29 is it historic and so forth. And, the word adjacent, surprisingly, doesn’t mean touching, it means 30 nearby. 31 MR. CAMPANA: The problem is, we’ve separated it…we’re doing exactly what our 32 process allow here, a modification before a project plan comes forward. But, we really…it’s 33 very difficult to look at this modification without looking at the project. And, you know, we’re 34 trying to make a decision on the modification without looking at the project, but this requires us 35 to. 35 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’m going to go ahead and move that we take a recess. We’ve 2 been at it for two and a half hours, and I imagine there’s a lot of bathroom breaks waiting in the 3 audience as well. So, we’ll just take a break. We don’t, so the public knows, when we take a 4 break, we don’t discuss this item, just for your confidence. We go to the bathroom, we get a 5 beverage, and we’ll be reading this for a few moments. And, so, I would say that we’ll come 6 back, if the Board’s okay with this, at twenty minutes ‘til. So, we’ve got about twelve minutes. 7 Or, do you want to go longer? 8 MS. CARPENTER: No, since they cut it down in size, that’s fine. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we’ll come back in twelve minutes, we’re recessed. 10 THE BOARD TOOK A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING. 11 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of February 16 th 12 , we’re going to continue with our consideration of the Remington Annex request 13 for modifications to standards. And, as we left it, we were asking staff a few questions, we were 14 about ready to maybe have some deliberation on the Board, if we’re done with our questioning. 15 What I’d like to be able to do at this point, I think, is if the Board is in agreement, I’m going to 16 propose that we begin, you know, we’ve got a few requests here for modifications. I think it 17 makes sense to start taking those one by one, right from the top, and having our deliberation and 18 some questions followed up by a motion, and then we’ll just take them one by one. How would 19 you all feel about that? Okay, then let’s go to the first one. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Is that the floor area ratio? 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: That one is density, right? The density, is that right? 22 MR. SHEPARD: And, we’ve got the slide for you. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Modification to Section 4.9(D)(1), Density. At 24 this point, let’s see if anybody on the Board has questions for staff about what’s being requested, 25 or any clarifications. Jennifer? 26 MS. CARPENTER: I’m not quite sure if this is in the right spot or not, but I do have a 27 question for staff regarding the Type I. It’s been referred to several times that under Type I, this 28 would all be allowed, or something to that effect. Can you respond to that please? 29 MR. SHEPARD: It’s the number of units question. Under a Type I, if you’re under 30 twenty-four units…well, you’re a Type I if you’re under twenty-four, you’re a Type II if you’re 31 twenty-four or over, as I recall. 32 MS. SCHMIDT: But, just because it’s a Type I hearing does not necessarily mean it 33 would be approved, it would just be reviewed by an administrative review officer versus the 34 Planning and Zoning Board. 36 1 MR. SHEPARD: That’s correct, there’s a density cutoff that says, under this you’re a 2 Type I, over this you’re a Type II. 3 MS. CARPENTER: Can you also have the same, all of these modifications, under a Type 4 I that you have under a Type II. 5 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, that’s correct. 6 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further questions from the Board on this one, of staff. Is 8 somebody ready to make a motion or do you want to share some thoughts and deliberate on this, 9 or do you have questions for, even, the applicant. 10 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, I have tons and tons of thoughts on this. There’s a lot of 11 great, great aspects to this project. And, a couple of them that are really…that always hit my hot 12 buttons, are when we do development with no parking. And, part of this first modification in 13 density, is accommodating parking. Now, I’ve driven by the site a bunch of times recently, 14 looked at it, looked at it, looked at it. And, a couple things come to mind. It’s hard when 15 everybody, as a neighbor is opposed. That reminds me of Mountain Avenue and the railroad, the 16 trolley cars went down through there. I volunteered on that project and people we’re throwing 17 rocks at us, it was amazing how much opposition to what turned out to be a great project that 18 turned out to be. But, with that said, this is just pushing the numbers so, so far, that it’s hard for 19 me to get my arms around whether we’re doing the right thing or not. But, I always look at it 20 with a total open mind, I try to look at is with a total open mind. And, I look at the white house 21 that would be to the right, when you look straight on the project. And, the height is almost the 22 same size. And, when I look at floor area on this one, I look at what’s behind it, and what’s 23 impacted there. I’d have a completely different opinion if that were a row of houses in 24 somebody’s backyard. So, you know, we’re alleviating a parking issue by building to that alley, 25 and I look at that as a positive. And, the fact that we’re taking a lot of the density as covered 26 parking, I think of as a positive. So, on this one, I’m just having a hard time getting over those 27 numbers. I’m generally in favor of it, but I’m having such a hard time justifying the numbers. 28 With that said, I’d like to hear what my Boardmembers’ feelings are. 29 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I just feel like you wouldn’t need that much parking if you didn’t 30 have that much density. So, I mean, you’re creating a solution to a problem that you’ve created. 31 Plus, you know, I know we disagree on this a lot, Butch, but I always feel like, if the whole idea 32 is that you’re building student housing close to CSU, again, you should, I think, really…you 33 can’t encourage people not to drive if you keep providing parking spaces. And, especially if 34 they’ve got a parking space in a garage right there, they’re going to take their cars to campus all 35 the time. I mean, it’s quite a ways if you’re on south campus in those buildings, and, you know, 36 so the only way to really encourage people to use transit, is to provide places that don’t have the 37 parking. And, I don’t think, see, to me, the parking, you know we could look at it in more detail 37 1 at another plan, but I just don’t think that that particular solution, although, you know, it might 2 be good, justifies doubling the density. I mean, that’s just about it, it says…staff report…was 3 exceeding by 94%, or practically twice as much as would otherwise be permitted. And, in my 4 mind, always, when you have a modification, modification means a change. And, so, it’s like, 5 this is very…when you’re almost doubling, that’s pretty major to me. It’s almost like a totally 6 different thing, not just modifying what would ordinarily be allowed there. So, I guess I can’t 7 support this modification. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer? 9 MS. CARPENTER: I agree with Brigitte, that in this case, I think that we’re solving a 10 problem after we create it, if we allow this density. But, even if you look at next door on this, 11 it’s not just next door, it’s the whole area that we have to think about. And, across the street, that 12 block face, and the change we make to this block face by adding that much density. So, I’m 13 having a hard time getting past these numbers, too. It’s just so far past that, I think Ms. Rollins 14 spoke to it, when she said it’s almost like a rezoning, as opposed to a modification, when you’re 15 looking at that much difference in the numbers. 16 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll just comment that, I think, as architects, you guys did a really nice 17 job articulating the front to try to bring down the scale. I like the way you’ve thought that 18 through, from a pedestrian perspective, and I’d like to see that a little bit more in future projects. 19 Good job on that. 20 MS. KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I also think that the project has a lot of redeeming 21 qualities, and I really like how you’ve done the front face of the project to try to tie in with that 22 neighborhood character. When I think about what we are tied to in our decision making, 23 fundamentally I don’t think that this modification is in line with the neighborhood, and I do think 24 it’s detrimental to the public good, because the numbers are so astronomically different than 25 what is required currently in the Land Use Code. 26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing I would say is that, I think that the applicant has made a 27 case about this, you know, that…it’s a buffer, of really only four hundred feet, and that you’re 28 making a transition from a very dense, commercial area right along College, to a residential 29 neighborhood that has a very different character, and how tough that is to be able to, you know, 30 accomplish that feathering effect, really, in just, you know four hundred feet. You know, I do 31 think that, you know, in looking at even the diagram, that it does…I would probably be 32 supportive of a nominal, inconsequential increase, above that. And, I can’t say for sure, but it 33 would seem that, in order to make that transition more effective, it might call for a higher 34 density. And, I think that, you know, along those lines is, you know, one thing we’ve always had 35 to struggle with, and I think we’re going to continue to struggle with more and more as a Board, 36 is, when we talk about buffering areas, and how we feather and make the transition from a much 37 higher intensity, especially with the predominant commercial district and commercial use, into 38 1 something that is a, you know, traditionally single-family residences, is the compatibility issue, 2 and that’s what density gets at. And, I think…you know, how can you be compatible with one 3 side, and also the other, and that’s tough. I mean, we always talk about how’s it going to be 4 compatible with the neighborhood. Well, how is it also compatible with the commercial district 5 behind it. So, I think that I would normally be, personally, agreeable to, you know, somewhat of 6 an increase in that density because of this, but, I think that at the number that’s being proposed, I 7 probably can’t support it. 8 I can’t, I’m sorry, we’ve closed that comment. Paul, I’m right, aren’t I? I want to make 9 sure, I don’t want to get in trouble again. 10 MR. CAMPANA: I just want to second what Andy’s saying, and that is, you know, from 11 the back elevation, when you’re in the alley, it does kind of fit it. I don’t have as much issue 12 with that. But, transitioning to the residential on the other side of the street makes it much more 13 difficult, and I think we have to be sensitive, more sensitive to that than the back alleyway. But 14 it is, you know, it’s a difficult site to develop. You guys have put a lot of thought into it, a lot of 15 creativity, and it’s a lot when you’re looking at it from the street side. 16 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think even from the neighbors on the side… 17 MR. CAMPANA: And sides, you’re absolutely right, and the sides. 18 MS. CARPENTER: I would also have to say that I would be in favor of it if it weren’t 19 going into the Historic District. This is our National Register Historic District, and I think, even 20 when you’re talking about a buffering, there’s a difference between going into a neighborhood 21 that’s not a historic district, and going into the Historic District. It just, to me, makes it much 22 more problematic. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch? 24 MR. STOCKOVER: With that said, we’re still on the first modification. And, when I 25 look at their set of plans, the first thing that really irritates me is when a developer threatens us 26 with, this is what we’ll do if you don’t allow this. And, on this one, I’m not taking it that way. 27 I’m taking as, yeah, we can park a bunch of cars out back, uncovered, and put twenty-some units 28 with two-bedrooms, forty some people in there in this way, or, let’s think outside the box on a 29 very unique property and accommodate it a little better. And, I think…I truly believe that this is 30 not a threat, but, here’s a better solution. And, whether this is voted up or down, I think we 31 always need to remember to look at this as a very unique site, and not a precedent setting 32 decision, because we aren’t setting a precedent city-wide, we’re making a decision on a very 33 unique piece of property. And, the fact that the house to the north has, you know, quite a bit of 34 open parking behind there, you’re not affecting their backyard really. The fact that it’s up 35 against a pretty tall building in an alley…most everything that we would be giving variance for is 36 hidden from the public view when you drive down Remington and not able to be seen at all when 39 1 we drive down College. So, I’m, you know, making my statements on this modification of 2 density only. So, I feel I could be in favor of it. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess…do you want me to go ahead and make a motion? 4 MR. STOCKOVER: Just one more thing, college students bring their cars and they go to 5 school during the week, and if they don’t drive their car for six days of the week, it’s sitting in 6 front of somebody’s house for six days of the week, and then they take it skiing on Sunday. So, 7 just encourage them not to drive, doesn’t mean they don’t bring their car and impact the 8 neighborhood, and that’s why parking off-street is so important. 9 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, and I guess I’ll put in a plug if we’re going to get on this topic, 10 because, since you mentioned the PDOD, what I’m hoping with something with PDOD is 11 someone will come in with something creative, like, yeah, we’re not going to have any parking, 12 we’re going to belong to Zip Car, and we’ll have a Zip Car space in our one, or two, three 13 spaces. So, if the students want to use the car on the weekend, they can check out the Zip Car 14 thing. I mean, to me, that is what we’re hoping will be the kind of creative thing that they PDOD 15 proposals will bring in. And they might…you know, we’ll have to see if they work or not. 16 Okay, so I’ll make a motion to deny the request for modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) 17 based on the fact that it is detrimental to the public good. 18 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Roll call 20 please. 21 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 26 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 27 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 28 MS. KIRKPATRICK: No. Oh, sorry, I mean yes. 29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 30 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 40 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, the request for the first modification of standard regarding 4 density was denied. Let’s move to the second modification request, which is the floor are ratio 5 section 4.9(D)(5). Staff will put that up for us to be able to look at. Any questions from the 6 Board about this request or the standard? Okay, well, we can deliberate any comments then. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess I’d just like to point out that the one gentleman was 8 correct as far as that it’s actually seven times the amount, that they’re asking for…a difference in 9 the rear lot. Because they would be allowed the 3,283 square feet and they want 22,712. Is that 10 correct, those numbers? 11 MS. LEVISNGSTON: They are allowed 3,283 square feet in the rear 50% of the lot, and 12 they are proposing 22,712 square feet. 13 MS. SCHMIDT: That 3,000 total, is that all three lots combined or would that be for each 14 lot? 15 MS. LEVINGSTON: That’s for all three lots combined. 16 MR. CAMPANA: The 22,712 includes their parking though, right? 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: The at-grade parking, yes. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me just throw out a comment. You know, as I read the intent 19 of the standard, I think it has more to do with keeping the buildings up front than it does creating 20 a backyard. And, so, you know, I think, largely…I think I’m supportive of this request for 21 modification because I do believe that, especially with the character of the neighborhood in that 22 district, that it is, you know, far more important…once they’ve accomplished having the building 23 forward, that they’ve been able to demonstrate, I think, that it doesn’t…it’s not detrimental to the 24 public good. And, I do believe that they’ve been able to hit the intent of it by keeping the 25 buildings up in the front. I just don’t think we want to get lost in the idea that it’s about creating 26 a backyard. 27 MS. CARPENTER: I think that part of the intent of this standard was to keep backyards 28 backyards. And, by building into the back part of the yard, you impact the yards on either side of 29 you. And that, I think, is what most of the people, when we were working on the Eastside 30 Westside changes that we’re going back into, another reset of that, that was a lot of the problem 31 with it. It’s not just getting things to the front, but also protecting people’s backyards. So, for 32 me, again, this one…especially in light of, that we’re getting ready to go through a reset, that 33 we’re going to be re-looking at all of this, I’m having a hard time supporting this standard as 34 well, or this modification. 41 1 MS. SCHMIDT: I agree exactly with what you’re saying, Andy, except again, I feel like 2 seven times the allowable…I mean, it’s just such a big change that, to me, that’s not a 3 modification. If you wanted to increase it by, you know, so that two-thirds of the yard instead of 4 50%, I mean those…it’s just too large a modification. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch, Gino, Kristin, what are your thoughts on this? 6 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would be inclined to agree with you, Andy. I think that, given 7 the fact that it’s in a buffer zone, and that it backs to an alley, to me, it makes sense. And also, 8 the unique character of the neighborhood, it makes sense to do a lot of that backfill on the back 9 portion of the site so that you can remain…have that character for the pedestrian level scale, and 10 the character that abuts the residential community. I think especially since that north lot, most of 11 that rear, you know, that significant bulk is abutting a parking lot, I think that is something to 12 consider. But, that parking lot might not always stay a parking lot, and there are impacts to the 13 property on the south side and we haven’t heard very much from the residents or the owner of 14 that property. But, I think there are impacts there that are worth considering as well. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gino? Butch? 16 MR. STOCKOVER: I really don’t have anything to add, I think it’s all been said. 17 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I do think, fundamentally though, that seven times the excess is 18 significant. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, does anybody have any other comments, or do you want 20 to make a motion? 21 MS. SCHMIDT: I’ll make the motion. Since I’m making it, I’ll make it from my 22 viewpoint I guess. I’ll make a motion to deny the modification of Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow 23 substantial divergence from the 0.33 rear FAR, because it’s detrimental to the public good. 24 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further discussion? Roll call please. 26 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 27 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 28 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 29 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 30 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 31 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 42 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Motion carries, the second request for modification to the floor 8 area ratio is denied. We’ll move to the third modification to a standard that’s been requested. 9 That is Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), Dimensional Standards. If anybody needs to take a moment to 10 refresh their memories, it’s up on the screen now. Any questions from the Board about this 11 request, or the standard itself? 12 MR. CAMPANA: Again, the issue with this is trying to separate the modification from 13 the actual design, because the design, as we see it in our packet, I think does a great job 14 articulating the building, which is really what we’re trying to accomplish. And, I believe there 15 was a comment in there that your average exceeds the standard anyway. So, I think you’ve done 16 a very good job as architects and developers in meeting the intent of that Code. The difficulty is, 17 to approve a modification without having the final plan, and be able to connect the two. That’s 18 where I’m having difficulty here tonight. 19 MS. SCHMIDT: Because, in a way, since we denied the other two modifications, then 20 technically, this plan that we have here could not really be built, right? 21 MS. LEVINGSTON: That’s correct. 22 MS. SCHMIDT: So, that’s kind of like what Gino said…how could we approve this 23 modification to something that doesn’t… 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, but I think we still need to be able to take them in isolation 25 without consideration of the other requests, whether they’re approved or denied. And, if nothing 26 else, give the applicant the feedback on this specific request so they can go forward. 27 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, so could we say we’re talking about this specific drawing that we 28 see here? Because I think, too, that that was well done, with some detail and everything in it. 29 Could probably have more, but… 30 MR. CAMPANA: Well, we could, but maybe we could condition it with, you know, 31 something along the lines of, the average exceeds the standard. I could live with that. The 43 1 average setbacks exceed the standard, as this drawing does, instead of trying to tie it to this exact 2 drawing. 3 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t know that you have any assurance that that drawing is what’s 4 going to manifest in the end anyway. 5 MR. CAMPANA: Well, that’s what I’m saying, yeah. 6 MR. ECKMAN: And, if you’re thinking, and I don’t know…I’m not sure it registered to 7 me, that the drawings that you saw meant compliance with the standard, because there were 8 setbacks, or exactly what. But I think that the request before you is that this is a different kind of 9 project that meets an important community need, or alleviates a problem, and, because of that, it 10 merits the modification to this setback of this dimensional standard, as long as you can also find 11 that it doesn’t impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and it’s not detrimental to the 12 public good. But, it seems like…it all hinges on the important community need issue, I think, 13 because that’s the foundation upon which this is requested, isn’t it? 14 MS. LEVINGSTON: No, it was not. It was…the modification was to Section 15 2.8.2(H)(4), which is nominal and inconsequential. 16 MR. ECKMAN: Oh, I’m sorry. Nominal and inconsequential. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes. 18 MR. ECKMAN: In the context of the neighborhood. 19 MS. CARPENTER: But, if we did approve that, we’re not really approving the way 20 this…they could come back with a completely different plan that…I just am having a hard time 21 saying that this one works. I understand what you’re saying, Gino. I think this looks pretty 22 good. But, if we approve that, this means nothing. They could just change it. 23 MR. CAMPANA: I agree, so, I mean, our choices tonight are to either approve it, deny it, 24 or continue it. I mean, I would feel a lot better about continuing until you have an actual 25 elevation that we’re looking at, and design, but… 26 MS. SCHMIDT: Can we continue an individual modification then? Is that an option? 27 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think they’re entitled to a vote. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I do too. 29 MR. CAMPANA: Yea, I was throwing it out there more, in case one of you guys wanted 30 to step up there and consider doing that. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’d like to continue…to get to a vote on it if we can. One thing 32 I’m going to say is that, on this request, I think, the architect did a very good job of being able to 44 1 show how this modification is…the request for the modification, is nominal and inconsequential 2 through the averaging. I think he was able to hit that. And so, I would support this request for a 3 modification to the standard as…if this process follows in a subsequent development proposal, 4 you know, if it’s…I think it is, to me, I’m not convinced that the diversion from that setback 5 standard is detrimental to the public good and I do believe that allowing it is nominal and 6 inconsequential. I’ve been convinced of that, I think, through very, very thoughtful design that is 7 sensitive to the architecture in the neighborhood. Obviously if something comes in…this doesn’t 8 mean yes to a development proposal, things can change. And, a lot of times, it is the whole 9 proposal that we’ll be looking at in consideration. But, as I see it here, notwithstanding the other 10 requests for modifications that have been made or denied, this one I would be willing to support. 11 MR. CAMPANA: The issue is that the modification stands for a year. Any project 12 brought forward could just go, vertically, straight up from the setback, and not have to comply to 13 this portion of the Code at all. That’s my hang up is… 14 MS. CARPENTER: That’s my hang up too. I can’t do that. 15 MR. CAMPANA: I hate to give that up and just give free willy to that right now. I mean, 16 it would be one thing if we’re looking at this design and looking at this modification. I don’t 17 have an issue with…this one I could support, but it’s very open-ended. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the only thing I can say, because I think in a way it’s a moot 19 point, I mean, you really aren’t getting anything, even if we approve it. And, I would think, I 20 think, you’ve heard the Board’s feedback that we like this plan and it’s generally…in the future, 21 it would be the direction to go as far as designing something with the articulation, but, for the 22 conscience of the Board and our consistency, maybe let’s just vote to deny it because then we 23 know exactly where we are with it. And, that’s my feeling on it, and I think you’ve got the 24 feedback and you understand, sort of, where we are because of everything else. That it’s 25 not…it’s not that we don’t like the particular plan that’s presented. Is that fair? 26 MR. CAMPANA: Does a denial tonight on this specific section of the Land Use Code 27 then hold for one year as well so the applicant can’t come forth for a year and ask for a 28 modification of that standard, on that property for a year? 29 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think so, then they could ask for the modification in connection 30 with a PDP plan. 31 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, so if it’s approved, it’s good for a year. But, if it’s denied, they 32 can come back next month and ask for it again. 33 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, and they might come back with a plan itself and ask for the 34 modification at that point if the plan doesn’t quite comply. 35 MR. CAMPANA: Okay. 45 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, you know Gino, that’s wise. I think I stand a little bit 2 corrected. That’s a good thing, I think, about our Board, is that when we deliberate, I don’t think 3 is necessarily…let’s fight it out. And, I’m glad that I heard what you said. I think the applicant 4 heard what I said about the design and, if we see something back around that at least, yeah, one 5 person, that’s okay I think…with some architectural creativity. But, I’m going to vote to deny it. 6 MS. SCHMIDT: So, you want me to make another motion. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: If you make a motion that…yeah, yeah. 8 MS. SCHMIDT: I hate being the evil person. Okay, I’ll make a motion that the Planning 9 and Zoning Board deny the modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), concerning the setback, 10 because it’s detrimental to the public good. 11 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a second, any further discussion? Roll call please. 13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 14 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 16 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 18 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Now we’ll move to the easy requests, the fourth and the 25 fifth, request to modify the standards, Sections 3.4.7(B) and (E). Does anybody need any more 26 discussion or any staff reporting on what these are that we’re discussing, or would you like to go 27 ahead and begin making comments and deliberating? 28 MS. CARPENTER: I’ll start on this one, then. This one to me, I cannot support, really 29 cannot support a modification on this. We have a structure that has been declared individually 46 1 eligible, locally eligible. It’s in the middle of a Historic District. We have historic fabric all 2 around it, and I cannot support it. I think it is detrimental to the public good, and it is not 3 something I can support. 4 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would agree. I would perhaps be more willing to consider 5 relocation of the home itself if it wasn’t within a Historic District. To me, that’s the really 6 important piece, of sort of layering all of those elements. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead Butch, we know you’re waiting. 8 MR. STOCKOVER: Oh, gosh, this reminds me of the little house that’s between the food 9 locker and the church. Nice little house, maybe not the best location for it to be in. I think that 10 house could shine somewhere else. Where it is, I think it’s destined to mediocrity. Just because 11 of its two neighbors on either side. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Those two neighbors could be turned into nice houses, where it’s 13 shown again, without the moving of this out of the Historic District. 14 MR. STOCKOVER: And I would agree with that somewhat, I’m just more flexible by 15 nature, and I think…I think, if it were me, I’d say let them move it. 16 MS. SCHMIDT: I would agree with Jennifer’s last comment, I mean, I think that two 17 houses, definitely the two houses on either side of this one, I think, are the eyesores in the 18 neighborhood. And, but, I think it’s been shown on north, you know, on Laurel Street, north of 19 the campus, and I realize some people obviously don’t like those newer places, but I think there 20 are some that have been done that kind of fit in to the neighborhood scale-wise and everything. 21 And so it’s very possible that you could do something on those two other individual lots that 22 could still add to the District, even though it would be a newer…I mean, not technically maybe 23 add, but make it an attractive area that would still be student housing. I think there are other 24 options that could make an improvement here that would be beneficial to the public good. 25 MR. CAMPANA: This is by far one of the hardest decisions on here is this demolition or 26 relocation. And, I got to be honest with…I hate driving down Laurel today and seeing all the 27 homes that are getting demolished or…I don’t think many of them are being relocated, but, the 28 texture and the feel of Laurel Street has completely changed. And, with this being in a Historic 29 District, you know, I don’t think it’s the right idea to go in there and start removing homes and 30 demolishing it…I think I agree with Butch that, perhaps if the house was put on another lot and it 31 could be rehabbed, you know, maybe it’s not such a huge loss to the house itself, but then I want 32 to look at the context of the neighborhood and I think, what does it do to the neighborhood with 33 that in there. As much as I want to support some of the other City policies we have and get some 34 housing near CSU and deal with some of the parking issues, it just seems like the wrong street to 35 do it on, so I’m going to have a hard time supporting it. 47 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Karen, can I ask a question? One thing I didn’t, maybe I missed, 2 is, specifically, if the relocation was conditioned upon it being put in, you know, it was relocated 3 within the District so it was still to some…maybe it replaced a house that was noted as an 4 intrusion. How would that affect this whole idea? 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: That would be very difficult to answer; it would depend on where 6 in the District it was going to be relocated. The very fact that you would take something, 7 okay…entering something into the District that’s not there has a negative impact on the District 8 too. So, taking this building from say, Remington Street, and moving it over to Mathews or to 9 the 300 block of Remington, or somewhere else within the District, has, by that nature, an impact 10 on those buildings. So, there is…right, so it impacts, it has a greater impact than just relocating 11 this building. Wherever you relocate this building, if you’re doing it within the Laurel School 12 National Register District, you’re still impacting the District in two ways, one from the loss of 13 the building on Remington, and two, from the addition of a building into another area that didn’t 14 have that building. 15 MS. SCHMIDT: But, if it’s a historic building, would that improve where…whichever 16 part of the District it went into? 17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Natural Register Historic District is about authenticity, it’s 18 not…so, you know, if that place does not have a building right now, then bring one in, plunking 19 it there, has an effect. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. 21 MS. MCWILLIAMS: It’s not a matter of would it look pretty, it’s a matter of 22 authenticity. 23 MS. CARPENTER: I think the other thing that I’d like to point out is that, incumbent on 24 us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has showed that 25 no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to 26 find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t been 27 looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated. So, that’s where I’m coming from. 28 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the other comment I’d like to make is…I always hear people 29 talk about all the policies in City Plan. You know, the ones that I rarely ever hear of are…there 30 is a commitment in City Plan to support existing neighborhoods, and always to maintain the 31 integrity of the existing neighborhoods. And, I think that, to me, that especially this being a 32 historical district, would really impact the existing neighborhoods and the people who live there, 33 because there is a certain amount of predictability for them. And, I think when you move it to a 34 historical district and you start investing money to fix up your house and everything, then you 35 have a certain expectation, and if other people can come and just sort of chip away at your 36 efforts, that is very detrimental to those people who’ve made efforts on their places, I think. 48 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing, I’m going to state the obvious, is, I think, that as we 2 continue to implement many of the goals and objectives of Plan Fort Collins, our City Plan, is 3 that we’re going to have competing objectives around the campus. We have historic homes, we 4 want to build density, we want student housing. And it’s all in the same area, and I think that, 5 you know, I value the historic preservation, I think, for all the right reasons, and I think that it 6 has to be, it has to be credible. And, I think a lot of times, that means financial credibility is 7 important for the program in general. And, that doesn’t mean anything really when we’re talking 8 about a real specific proposal right now, and how this kind of weighs out. One thing I think is 9 important in this process though, is that the work that is done by the historic preservation 10 professionals in the city, and the LPC Board, is, it needs to be respected and it is part of the 11 Municipal Code about how we deal with…how we as, you know, I guess, enforcers of the Land 12 Use Code, deal with that. There’s some nuances there that, I think, need to be probably further 13 explored a little bit in the future. And, in the mean time, I think, you know, personally, I do 14 think that, you know, it would make sense, you know, without knowing everything that I’ve 15 heard tonight and learned over the past week or so about this proposal and the historical integrity 16 of the District, beyond just the house. You know, I think that it would make sense to move the 17 house but I think that now we’ve seen it in the context of the District and what it would do as far 18 as authenticity. I probably would vote to deny the request for a modification at this point. That 19 one doesn’t feel that good, I’ll be honest. You know, it wasn’t like they were asking to 20 demolish, you know, one of the houses on Mountain Avenue or anything, you know, the Avery 21 House or anything. But, it is what it is because I think that the rules state what they do, and so, 22 we’ll follow them. Any other comments? Do we have a motion? 23 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just going to ask, can we put these two modifications together? I 24 make a motion to deny the modification of Section 3.4.7(B) because it is detrimental to the 25 public good. 26 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a motion that’s been seconded. Any further 28 discussion? Roll call please. 29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 30 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 32 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 34 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 49 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, I make a motion to deny the modification request for Section 8 3.4.7(E), and that was based on detrimental to the public good. 9 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or 11 comments? Roll call please. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 13 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 15 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 17 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 19 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 21 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, moving on. That concludes our discussion and 24 deliberation of the Remington Annex request for modifications of standard. We will take on the 25 next issue. 26 27 1 1 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2 Hearing Agenda • Hearing Items for 2/16/12 – Discussion Agenda • Remington Annex Modification of Standards (Levingston) • Carriage House Apts. Modification of Standards (Levingston) • Proposed Amendment to the Appeals Procedures Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the Municipal Code – Other Business 2 3 Remington Annex Modification of Standards 4 Remington Annex Project Modifications 1) Overall Floor Area Ratio (lot density) 2) Rear half of lot Floor Area Ratio 3) Side step back (dimensional standard) 4) Historic and Cultural Resources– General Standard 5) Historic and Cultural Resources- Demolition and Relocation 3 5 Vicinity Map E. Laurel St. S. College Ave. E. Plum St. Remington St. Mathews St. N 6 Parcel Map 705 711 715 4 7 Zoning Map N 8 Laurel School National Register Historic District Approx. Project Location 5 9 705 And 715 Remington Street 10 711 Remington Street 6 11 11sstt Modification –– Section 4.9 (D)(1) Density Code Standard Lot Area = Total Floor Area 1.0 Lot Density Proposed Project 19,897 sq ft. lot 38,662 sq. ft. floor area 1.94 Lot Density 12 Proposed Site Plan 7 13 22nndd Modification-Modification - Section 4.9(D)(5) Rear 50% of Lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Code Standard Maximum FAR of .33 in rear half of lot. Includes at-grade garage floor area. Site could have up to 3,283 square feet of floor area in rear 50% of lot. Proposed Project 2.28 Rear FAR Exceeds standard by 195% 22,712 square feet total in rear half of lot 14 Density and Rear Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 8 15 33rrdd Modification –– Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) Code Standard Buildings exceeding 18 feet in height must step back 1 foot for every 2 feet in height beyond 18 feet in height. Proposed Project Height: 36 feet Step back: 0 feet 16 Project Elevations 9 17 44tthh and 5tthh 5 Modification-Modification - Section 3.4.7 (B), (E) Code Standard to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure… …and enhance the historic and architectural value of any historic property on site or adjacent to. Proposed Project Does not preserve and adaptively reuse the home at 711 Remington Street into the project. 18 44tthh and 5tthh 5 Modification-Modification - Section 3.4.7 (B), (E) Code Standard A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation … may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. Proposed Project Does not preserve and adaptively reuse the home at 711 Remington Street into the project to the maximum extent feasible. 10 19 711 Remington Street 20 705 Remington Street 11 21 715 Remington Street 22 Looking Northeast to Site 12 23 Looking East from Project Site Remington Street 24 Looking Southwest Project Site 13 25 Looking North from Alley 26 Property to North, 701 Remington St. 705 Remington St. 701 Remington St. 14 27 Proposed Project Aerial N S. College Ave. CC NCB NCM 28 Maximum Extent Feasible Land Use Code Definition (Section 5.1.2) …no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. 15 29 Conceptual Design Does Not Meet the Following LUC Standards: - Section 3.5.1 (B) - Section 3.4.7(B)(F) - Section 4.9 (E)(1)(b) 1 1 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny Two Stand-Alone Modifications in connection with the Remington Annex Project 2 Vicinity Map E. Laurel St. S. College Ave. E. Plum St. Remington St. Mathews St. N ATTACHMENT 9 2 3 Laurel School National Register Historic District Project Location 4 705 , 711, 715 Remington Street Site of proposed Remington Annex Apartment Project 3 5 711 Remington Street 6 Looking East from Project Site Remington Street 4 7 Looking Southwest Project Site 8 Project Elevations 5 9 Process for Determinations of Eligibility for Local Landmark Designation • Landmark Preservation Chapter -Municipal Code • Review historical significance of buildings 50 years old and older • Prevent loss of historic resources; preserve character; allow for public participation • LPC Chair and CDNS Director • 711 Remington Street was determined to be eligible for individual local landmark designation. 10 Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (B) –– General Standard • Proposed project does not meet all LUC standards: 1: Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (B), General Standard, which requires preservation to the maximum extent feasible for those structures which are (1) deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; (2) officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated as a State landmark; or (3) located within an officially designated historic district • 711 Remington meets all three criteria 6 11 Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (E) –– Relocation or Demolition • Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition, which requires the applicant, to the maximum extent feasible, to attempt to preserve the structure in accordance with the standards of this Section, and show that the preservation of the structure is not feasible. • Maximum extent feasible: no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations have been undertaken. 12 Process for Approving Relocation or Demolition •1st step: Determination of Eligibility – 711 Remington (the Button House) determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation August, 2011 •2nd step: LPC Preliminary Hearing, October 2011 and January 2012 – No solution found that would retain eligibility •3rd step: P & Z Board Plan Approval – P & Z would need to approve the Remington Annex Project, finding that it complies with all Land Use Code standards including the Cultural and Historic Resources section (3.4.7) •4th step: LPC Final Hearing – At LPC final hearing, relocation/demolition plans are approved; or referred to City Council 7 13 Evaluation of Modification Requests “ The applicant has not demonstrated a willingness to consider the prudent alternatives to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the historic building at 711 Remington and adding stand alone dwellings (duplex or 4-plex) on either side.” (staff report, pg. 17) 14 Evaluation of Modification Requests “Neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design appropriately protects and enhances the historic and architectural value of the historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the other properties in the Laurel School National Register Historic District.” (staff report, pg. 18) 8 15 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • Hearing February 16, 2012 • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) • Appeal of these denials filed March 1, 2012 16 Grounds for Appeal • Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading • Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code in the Denial of the Requests for Modification 9 17 11sstt Assertion • Appellants assert that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading – Appellant assets that board deferred to staff opinion and information on which the determination of eligibility was based is incorrect, and 711 Remington Street is not individually eligible 18 Information Citied by Appellants • Eligibility for local landmark designation • P&Z Board reference to zip cars (transcript, pg. 39, lines 9- 15) • P&Z Board reference to “…potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property…” (transcript, pg. 47, lines 23-27) • Letter from Dr. Kozial (transcript, pp. 14&15) 10 19 22nndd Assertion • Appellants assert that the P & Z Board failed to properly Interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in the denial of the requests for modification – That the proposed modifications are not detrimental to the public good; and – That the project would substantially advance the public good because it substantially addressed adopted plans and policies 20 P & Z Board Discussion • Board discussed value of preserving the existing context of Laurel School National Register District (transcript, pg. 46) • Discussion around detrimental to the public good finding (transcript, pg. 45, line 28-29; pg. 46, line 1-3) 11 21 Requirements for Modification • To grant the requested Modifications, the P&Z Board must find that: – not be detrimental to the public good; and – not impair the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code; and • substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern; or • would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council; and – the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. 22 Summary • The Remington Annex Project is located within the Laurel School State and National Register Historic District • Additionally, the house at 711 Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process and procedures in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code • The project does not meet the requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. • In order to grant a modification request to Historic and Cultural Resource standards, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code 12 23 Planning & Zoning Board Motions • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript, pg.48-49) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript, pg.49) 24 Questions for Council Action 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? Site Visit – Remington Annex Appeal Date: April 12, 2012 1:39 p.m. – 1:54 p.m. Attendance: In attendance from City Council were Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Horak. City Staff included Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, Courtney Levingston, City Planner and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner. The Appellants, Christian and Robin Bachelet, as well as attorney Jeffrey Johnson were present. Additionally, 6 affected property owners; Mark Anderson, Barbra Liebler, John Pickerton, Larry Dunn, Debra Dunn and Marcy Reiser attended the site visit. Summary: The site visited started in front of 711 Remington Street. Deputy City Attorney Daggett informed all in attendance of the rules regarding a City Council site visit. A general overview of the issue of Appeal and site was given by Planner Levingston, noting that on February 16, the Appellants requested 5 stand alone modifications to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences and constructing one multi-family building in their place. The Planning and Zoning Board denied all 5 modification requests and on March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these modifications of standard requests in connection with the historic preservation standards of the Land Use Code. During the summary, Councilmember Horak confirmed the number of units (42) and asked if the units would be rented by the bedroom or the apartment. Ms. Bachelet confirmed that the units were studio apartments and they would be rented by the unit. Councilmember Horak inquired as to why the residence at 711 Remington was considered individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation. Preservation Planner McWilliams answered that the residence at 711 Remington Street was constructed in 1888 and has unique and distinct architectural features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood context, including a distinctive façade consisting of a hipped central mass with symmetrical projecting hipped end-wings, a central bell-cast hipped dormer and its unusual 15-light window and carved rafter tails under the eaves. The Councilmembers, Appellant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to view the residence at 711 Remington Street from the north side of the property and then proceeded west to the rear of the property. The Councilmembers, Applicant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded north down the alley to the rear of the residence at 705 Remington Street. The rear property boundary for the Remington Annex project was pointed out and noted. Shortly after, the group proceeded back down the alley, towards the rear of 711 Remington Street. Councilmember Horak pointed out a small accessory structure and asked Ms. Bachelet if she owned the accessory structure as well. Ms. Bachelet reported that she did not own that structure. Councilmember Horak inquired about the date of the two additions noticed on the rear of the residence at 711 Remington Street, asking if they were added after the construction date of the main house. Staff responded yes. A citizen began to add information she thought the Council should have, but was prevented from doing so by Deputy City Attorney Daggett. At that time, Councilmember Ohlson asked Daggett to clarify what types of questions or information may be asked at a site visit. Daggett replied it was important to note questions and later ask them at the appeal hearing. Daggett then went back over the site visit protocol and procedure. Next, the group continued to walk south down the alley, past 715 Remington Street to the end of the alley and turned left on Plum Street. Walking to the intersection, the group turned left again on to Remington Street and returned to the front of the residence at 711 Remington Street. Upon returning to the front the residence at 711 Remington Street, the site visit ended at approximately 1:54 p.m. and attendees disbursed. Fort Collins C romote the re lan are not ne oric residentia e Community al design doe es for preserv es (LIV 16.6) ceptual desig d parking at g s, four(4) one- area. eptual design ompatible wit ted that the sc h the Reming College Aven ully realized. sion 2.8.2(H)(2 to encourage se Code is be on under the e and historic thoughtful co ns. CO 80521 City Plan that ecognition and ecessarily com al structures a Spine (LIV 5. es incorporate ving historic re and preservin n exercise is ground level ( -bedroom and re-emphasize h each other cope of this c gton Annex pr nue and Rem 2), in the bes e the full imple eing requeste provisions of c character of onsideration o tel. 970.224.1 were conside d preservation mpatible with are in such cl .2) at College e the principle esources (LIV ng historic bu a three story 20 additional d two (2)two-b es the realiza or with the st conceptual de roject and doe ington Street t interest of th ementation of ed so that the Division 3.4. f the house w of our request 191 fax 970. ered during th n of historic b each other in ose proximity e Avenue. Non es of increasin V 16.3), integ ildings (LIV 1 , 17,159 squa spaces cove bed room unit ation that not a tandards of th sign focused es not reflect that will even he individually f the Fort Coll structure at 7 7(E) to a loca hile Fort Colli t for these fou .224.1662 w his conceptua buildings. It wa n all instances y to the densit netheless, wh ng awareness ration of histo 7.1). are foot reside er the rear por ts comprise th all principles o he Fort Collins only on the r the redevelop ntually occur w y eligible histo lins City Plan 711 Remingto ation that will ins continues ur modification www.theartofcon al design effor as discovered s, particularly ty that the Fo hile recognizin s of historic re oric structures ential building rtion of the lot he remaining of the Fort Co s Land Use C edevelopmen pment and inf when the goa oric structure a modificatio on Street can remain conte to develop a ns to the Land nstruction.com rt include LIV d not all y in cases rt Collins City ng these esources (LIV s into g with 4,000 t). Fourteen 13,159 ollins City Code in all nt of the fill of the als of the Fort at 711 on to Division be extually ccording the d Use Code m y V t d total length o A provides pla the articulatio of representa side yard set from the stan on Annex proje 4). tion to Divisi at 711 Remin Code Languag 1) is determin State or Nation lan and buildi se Code com ication of the ng house at 7 ure and resto gn also strives redevelopmen pment of prop maximizing la Fort Collins, te of one foot he third floor ove grade. Th omply with th alls of the pro This includes a yard setback equirements o sed Remingto ack at grade e "). ack at eightee ent by one fo ack at thirty fe rement by thr yard setbacks greatest encro of the north a an views at gra n of the facad ative condition tbacks. Both t ndard set in D ect should be ion 3.4.7(B) i ngton Street. ge: Standard. ned to be indiv nal Registers ing design sh mpliant concep Fort Collins L 711 Remingto oring the build s to fulfill the nt and Infill (L perties in resid and for reside CO 80521 t for every two walls intersec his profile is re e various sub posed project an articulated at various po of the Land U on Annex pro equals five fee en feet above oot and five in eet above grad ree feet (3'-0" s exceed the r oachment into nd south wall ade level, eig de as the buil ns along the n these figures Division 4.9(D) e granted this n regards to t If the project vidually eligib of Historic Pl hall provide fo ptual design w Land Use Co n Street. This ing as closely principles of t LIV 5.1), public dential areas ential develop tel. 970.224.1 o foot increas ct the roof stru epresented b bsections of D t have been d d facade, vary oints. These fe Use Code for t oject are as fo et and nine in grade equals ches (1'-5"). de equals fou "). requirements o the required ls (see attach ghteen feet ab ding height in north and sou visually desc )(6)(d) when t modification the preservat t contains a si le for local lan laces... ...the r the preserva was develope de, including s concept incl y as possible the Fort Collin c investment (LIV 6.1), pro pment (LIV 7.4 191 fax 970. se in wall heig ucture, which y the dashed Division 3.4.7( designed to re ying roof heig eatures also c the NCB Distr ollows: nches (5'-9"). T s six feet and urteen feet an Division 4.9( d setback is li hed figures 3A bove grade an ncreases. Fig uth walls as w cribe the nom the building is of standards tion and adap ite, structure ndmark desig en to the maxi ation and ada ed (see attach Division 3.4.7 ludes the dem to its original ns City Plan w along the Co oviding a varie 4). .224.1662 w ght to equal el h in the case o lone in each (F) of the For eflect the cha hts and dorm create areas rict. When av This exceeds five inches (6 nd zero inches D)(6)(d). Furt imited to only A and 3B). nd thirty feet a ure 3B provid well as a sectio inal and incon s viewed as a based on the ptive reuse of or object that gnation or for imum extent f aptive use of t hed figures 1A 7(B), preserv molition of the l 1888 configu which encour ommunity Spin ety of housing www.theartofcon leven feet at t of the Reming of the illustra rt Collins Land racter of histo mers all which where the sid veraged, the s s the code req 6'-5"). This ex s (14'-0"). Thi thermore, the y twenty-perce above grade w des section vi on view illustr nsequential n a whole, there e provisions o the individua t... individual list feasible, the d the historic st A & 1B) which ing the origin e various addi uration. ages, among ne (LIV 5.2), e g types and lo nstruction.com the point gton Annex ations on d Use Code orical encroach de yard side yard quirement by xceeds the s exceeds e portions of ent of the which ews at a rating the nature of the efore, the of Division lly eligible ting in the development tructure. h follows a al portion of tions made to other things, expansion or ocations (LIV m o , of the narrow e encouraged d by Division and NCM Di side of Remin by Kensington to the south-e g 1.00 which s on of Remingt e in defining a a modification e implementa of the NCB D tion to Divisi wall height in e nguage: Minim building excee or side lot line f wall or buildi 5) feet on the nd place of wo lication of the he Remington Fort Collins, Use Code Div s to "...provide or high traffic n which the pr red feet with Density Dist oposed projec According to ill. The attach sion 4.18(E): D mitations on th ment, which is what might be ensity of the C that Division abuts the east w nature of the d through Prin 4.9(D)(1) wo stricts. This tr ngton Street th n Place apart east (see atta successfully w ton Street do a transition be n of this stand ation of the va District to begi ion 4.9(D)(6)( excess to 18' mum side yard eds eighteen e an additiona ing height tha street side of orship uses sh e minimum sid n Annex proje CO 80521 vision 4.9 (A) e a transition c zones..." roposed Rem the Commun rict (NCM) to ct have been Policy LIV 5. hed figure 2A Development he overall den s just across t e expected fr Collegio proje 4.8(D): Land t side of the N e NCB District nciple LIV 6.1 uld provide a ransition coul han on the ea tments to the ached figure 2 work to facilita comply with t etween the m dard for the R arious portions n to function a (d) in regards . d width shall b (18) feet in h al one (1) foot, at exceeds eig f any corner lo hall be twenty de yard setba ect to be set b tel. 970.224.1 states that th between resid mington Annex ity Commerci the east (refe identified in t 1 the purpose illustrates tha t Standards of nsity of these he alley from rom these infi ct is 2.54. Th Use Standar NCB District w t in this area, of the Fort C more effectiv d be made ev ast side. north-east of 2A) are examp ate this trans the maximum edium density Remington An s of the Fort C as more effec s to the increa be five (5) fee height, such p t, beyond the ghteen (18) fe ot. Notwithsta y-five (25) fee ack standard w back five feet f 191 fax 970. he purpose of dential neighb x project is loc ial District (CC er to attached the Fort Collin e of this desig at, for the mos f the Fort Col e properties w the proposed ll redevelopm is high densit rds of the Fort where the pro residential ex Collins City Pla ve transition b ven more effe f the proposed ples of existin ition. The bal m lot density d y NCM Distric nex project u Collins City P ctive transition ase of the 5’ s et for all interi portion of the w minimum req eet in height. anding the for et (for both int would prescri from grade up .224.1662 w f the Neighbo borhoods and cated this tran C) to the wes d figure 2A). T ns City Plan a gnation is to p st part, this re lins Land Use when they are d project, is o ment projects w ty developme t Collins Land posed Remin xpansion and an), with lot d between the h ective by prom d project and ng buildings w ance of the e efined in Divi ct and the hig nder the crite Plan as descri nal zone. side yard setb ior side yards wall or buildin quired, for eac Minimum side regoing, minim terior and stre be the entiret p to eighteen www.theartofcon rhood Conse d more intens nsition occurs t and the Nei The properties as a Targeted promote highe edevelopmen e Code does redeveloped ne of the few when they are ent is in stark d Use Code p ngton Annex P d redevelopme densities highe highly contras moting higher the Phi Delta with a lot dens xisting structu sion 4.9(D)(1 gher density C eria of Division bed above an back an additi s. Whenever a ng shall be se ch two (2) fee e yard width s mum side yar eet sides). ty of the north feet above g nstruction.com rvation, sive s over the ghborhood s adjacent to d er density t and infill has not prescribe . w examples in e contrast to prescribes for Project is ent projects er than sting densities r densities on a Theta sities ures along ) yet are CC District. n 2.8.2(H)(2) nd also help ional 1’ for any portion of et back from et or fraction shall be rd width for h and south rade and m s e s f st seven and nd basements oss floor area of total buildi lated per the d of Division 4 uilding footpri he limited pa ould be 1.37 CO 80521 ration from th e that appear gures below) dard for the R the standard ovide for bette in regards to lot area shall are feet. For t ipal buildings vel, plus the to 0) square fee one-half (7½) s shall not be per this Divis ng floor area requirements 4.9(D)(1) by n int will provide rking situation (refer to figur tel. 970.224.1 e Land Use C more like the . Remington An , which encou er compliance the total gros ll be equivalen the purposes s as measured otal gross floo et, plus that po ) feet located counted as f sion of the La to lot size, or s of this sectio ninety-four pe e for 65 cove n in this part o re 2B for illust 191 fax 970. Code above, t e proposed de nex project u urages buildin e with Division ss floor area i nt to the total of calculating d along the ou or area of the ortion of the fl within any su floor area for p nd Use Code r lot density, o on is 38,662 s ercent. This in red parking s of Fort Collins trations and c .224.1662 w the intent of D esign rather th nder the crite ngs to addres n 3.4.7(F) of th in relation to t floor area of g density, "tot utside walls o ground floor floor area of a uch accessory purposes of c e is 19,897 sq of 1.00. The g square-feet (a ncludes 11,43 paces fully on s. If this parki calculations). www.theartofcon Division 4.9(D han the Land eria of Division ss and align w he Fort Collin the lot size. the building(s tal floor area" of such buildin of any access any second st y building loca calculating de uare-feet, wh gross floor are a lot density o 33 sq ft of enc n the site whi ng was not en nstruction.com D)(5) is to Use Code n 2.8.2(H)(1) with other ns Land Use s), but not " shall mean ngs, including sory building tory having a ated on the ensity). hich can be ea of the of 1.94) closed parking ch will help nclosed the m g g Fort Collins, s: res shall be d tern of the pri m extent feasib the Fort Collin shed away fro e block face. eighborhood s mpliant concep Fort Collins L 33. This conce ngton Street re tual design, a Collins City Pla ment along th 6.1), providing nt (LIV 7.4). Fort Collins C romote the re lan are not ne oric residentia e Community al design doe es for preserv es (LIV 16.6) ceptual desig d parking at g s, four(4) one- area. CO 80521 designed to be imary building ble. See Figur Divisi ns Land Use om the street t This is contra setting. ptual design w Land Use Co ept included t estoring it to as well as the an which enco he Community g a variety of City Plan that ecognition and ecessarily com al structures a Spine (LIV 5. es incorporate ving historic re and preservin n exercise is ground level ( -bedroom and tel. 970.224.1 e in character g entrance fac re 6." ion 3.4.7(F)(2) Building Patte Code above, towards the r ary to the liter was develope de, including the demolition its original 18 proposed Re ourages, amo y Spine (LIV housing type were conside d preservation mpatible with are in such cl .2) at College e the principle esources (LIV ng historic bu a three story 20 additional d two (2)two-b 191 fax 970. r with such ex cing the stree 2) Figure 6 erns the major ma rear portion of ral interpretati ed (see attach Division 4.9( n of the variou 888 configurat emington Ann ong other thin 5.2), expansi es and locatio ered during th n of historic b each other in ose proximity e Avenue. Non es of increasin V 16.3), integ ildings (LIV 1 , 17,159 squa spaces cove bed room unit .224.1662 w xisting historic et shall be ma ass of the new f the lot to he ion of Division hed figures 1A D)(5) limiting us additions m tion. nex design, al ngs, targeted on or redevel ns (LIV 7.1), his conceptua buildings. It wa n all instances y to the densit netheless, wh ng awareness ration of histo 7.1). are foot reside er the rear por ts comprise th www.theartofcon c structures... aintained to w building in t lp maintain th n 4.9(D)(5) ye A & 1B) which the FAR of th made to the e lso strives to f redevelopme lopment of pr and maximizi al design effor as discovered s, particularly ty that the Fo hile recognizin s of historic re oric structures ential building rtion of the lot he remaining nstruction.com the preferred he established et is a better h followed a he rear fifty- existing fulfill the ent and Infill operties in ing land for rt include LIV d all y in cases rt Collins City ng these esources (LIV s into g with 4,000 t). Fourteen 13,159 m d y V ucted closer t ks in tandem w patterns on a b are constructe ion 4.9(D)(5) hoods. With s h 1 states in p " To the max be similar to t structure is lo the site..." gth in design Fort Collins, eighborhood S n for the Remin g Modification ion 4.9(D)(5) r Area Ratio (F ent of the lot a nsidered the m rea Ratio (FA with the max to the front of with Division 3 block face. Ho ed, which are creates a con pecific releva part: ximum extent those of existi ocated... ...Tal n. Strength i CO 80521 Services ngton Annex p n of the follow of the Fort C FAR). Lots ar as it existed o minimum lot s R) for the rea ximum rear ya f the lot so the 3.4.7(F)(1) & owever, when promoted un nflict with the ance to the rea feasible, the h ing historic st ller structures n partnershi tel. 970.224.1 project wing Standard Collins Land re subject to a on October 25 size within the ar fifty-percent ard FAR enco ey become m (2) of the For n higher dens der Principle provisions of ar-yard FAR f height, setba tructures on a s or portions o p. Strength 191 fax 970. s of the City’s Use Code in a maximum F 5, 1991. The l e zone distric t of the lot is 2 ourages small ore aligned w rt Collins Land sity residentia LIV 6.d of the f Division 3.4. for these proj ck and/or wid any block face of structures s in communit .224.1662 w s Planning Co n regards to F FAR of thirty-t lot area used ct. 2.28 (refer to ler single fam with other buil d Use Code t al expansion a e Fort Collins .7 when cons jects, Division dth of new stru e on which the shall be locate ty. www.theartofcon ode for the Re Floor Area Ra three hundred as the basis figure 2B for mily homes an dings along th to maintain th and redevelop City Plan, co tructed in his n 3.4.7, Sectio uctures shall e new ed interior to nstruction.com emington tio in the dths (0.33) on for the FAR illustrations d duplexes to he street. he established pment ompliance storic on F, m n o d