No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/03/2012 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZODATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand-alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately ten units per building. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand-Alone Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appellant alleges 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 modification of standards requests. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In November 2011, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November, and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be 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. 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 individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; 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 Appellant chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests. April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 22 ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, 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 unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. 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? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges 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 Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305 South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects Report, in support of this assertion. The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the modifications of standard request. Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible for local landmark designation. The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff report on the modifications of standards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15). April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 22 The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 2012, at the same time as electronic copies of the Appellant’s Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did not review or consider any of these reports in making its decisions on the modifications of standards (transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board’s consideration, the Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated, “The fact of relevancy of these documents is that, again, we’re not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, these are just supporting materials that were part of the slide show.”…. and, “But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were not asking that your decision hinge on those reports.” (Transcript, pg.15). 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, West Central Neighborhood 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 1305 South Shields Street 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 …, 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 Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition 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. 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. April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 22 The staff report to the Board notes that, “while providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan… providing for the protection of historic resources is also required.” The Planning and Zoning Board’s discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. 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. The Appellant states that granting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing policies from the West Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing Objectives. On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map. This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on the fact that they are detrimental to the public good. As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes that, “the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of heritage and area identity.” 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 the cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the Notice of Appeal. 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. Additionally, the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form that the Appellant references on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of eligibility. 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 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood definition of “substantial.” Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition of substantial, as stated in the staff report, was determined using Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) pursuant to LUC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board was “considerable in amount, value or worth.” In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition of the word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staff and subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states, (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. April 3, 2012 -5- ITEM 22 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 the word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and demolition 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 house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the process and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished 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, which was 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 both of the request for modifications based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal, Filed by Appellant, March 1, 2012 3. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated February 16, 2012, Carriage House Apartments Stand-Alone Modification of Standard, MOD120001 4. Letter from applicant, Charles Bailey, to Planning and Zoning Board dated January 30, 2012 5. Property Information submitted by Applicant at Planning and Zoning Board Meeting: - Rogue Architecture Report - Gebau Structural Review - Landmark Designation Opinion, 1305 South Shields Street, prepared by Oz Architecture 6. Requested Findings of Fact submitted by Applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 16, 2012 7. Information submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 16, 2012, by David Taylor, affected property owner 8. State of Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey 9. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 10 Staff PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 11. Applicant PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 12. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council 13. Site Visit Summary, March 26, 2012 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 3.4.7 contains standards requiring the preservation of structures determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, to the maximum extent feasible. The applicant is not willing to provide for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in their proposal. While providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Sub-Area plan, providing for the protection of historic resources is required. Due to the fact that this project is only providing, at most, fifty (50) dwelling units and is not incorporating the historic home into the site design, both modifications are unable to be justified because they do not substantially meet a City-wide need, considered on a city-wide basis. COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential with free-stall barns and farm character); S: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential and Bennett Elementary School); E: H-M-N—High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (existing commercial); W: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential neighborhoods) The existing buildings proposed to be demolished are both over fifty years old and therefore subject to Chapter14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process”. In September 2011, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the building at 1319 South Shields was not individually eligible for local landmark designation, due to previous alterations which negatively affected the building’s historic integrity. However, the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair determined that the house at 1305 South Shields Street was individually eligible for local landmark designation. In November 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the house. The Commission and the applicant were not able to identify a mutually agreeable solution that would preserve the house and allow for the applicant to redevelop the property as desired. Following the November LPC meeting, the applicant requested a third Determination of Eligibility from the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, and provided additional information to support this request. At that time, neighbors also provided additional information on the property for consideration. Due to the new information provided, the CDNS Director and 2 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 LPC Chair both re-evaluated the eligibility of the house. In December 2011, the house at 1305 South Shields Street was again found to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, for both its architectural significance and for its historical significance, based upon its association with Dr. William Carlson, University of Wyoming President. The Commission found that the proposed demolition of 1305 South Shields 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. 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 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 3 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 (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). 3. Land Use Code Citations for the two (2) Standards: A. 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 B. 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. 4. Applicant Modification Request: The proposed Overlay Plan, (Exhibit PDP2) depicts the relationship with the 1305 S. Shields Street house with the proposed site plan for Carriage 4 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 House Apartments. As indicated, if the house is preserved, two of the proposed buildings (#3 + #4) would not be developable. The loss of two buildings represents 40% of the project. Considerable economies of development, construction and operations are lost with a 40% reduction in volume which would jeopardize the viability of the project. Further, the Owner has a contract to sell the entire 1.15 acre parcel. The contract does not contemplate purchasing just the back portion of the subject property. Proposed Site Plan – The proposed Site Plan, (Exhibit PDP3) contemplates five (5) separate buildings. Each of the buildings shall be designed to look more like single family houses than typical apartment buildings with the inclusion of porches, orientation of the building to the street, a consolidation of most of the access to the back of the building and extensive articulation on the exterior. The NCB zoning requires that the buildings be located predominantly on the front half of the site. The subject property is rectangular in shape making the frontage facing the 335’ along Springfield Street. The NCB zoning imposes a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restriction that minimizes the amount of building area in the back half of the site to just 0.33 of the total land area. In the case of the subject property, only 21,610square feet can be built on the back half of the site. The net result is that in order to optimize the site plan as required in NCB zoning, the bulk of the buildings must be on the front half of the site. Further, the 2010 City Plan places an emphasis on new multi-family residential buildings that have variation to the exterior to avoid monotony and are situated to face the street, as is the case with the proposed plan. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan – Housing Policies also stresses attached dwelling unit buildings to be designed to a scale appropriate to their surroundings (F4). Rather than designing the typical large building, the proposed plan contemplates five smaller buildings. The result is that the proposed site plan is tailored to developing smaller, separate buildings rather than a more typical large building. Thus, the placement, size and quantity of buildings contemplated in the proposed Carriage House Apartments site plan is the result of addressing and conforming to the City’s stated objectives. Mitigation scenarios to develop around the 1305 S. Shields St. residence have been explored by the applicant, to no avail. The 1305 S. Shields residence has been a rental for a number of years. It is rapidly reaching the end of its functional life due to deterioration and deferred maintenance. Further, the home is woefully inadequate with respect to the energy efficiency, basic insulation values and water saving features that are required in the current City code. The applicant doesn’t acknowledge any historic character to the 1305 S. Shields property, and therefore can find no sound reason to retain it. 5 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 City Plan specifically and expressly defines and describes the following policies that support the proposed project:  Policy EH 4.1 Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas – The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted in LIV1) encompass the subject property.  Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill – The project will concentrate higher density housing in a location that is currently served by high frequency transit and can thus support higher levels of activity.  Policy LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas – The project will provide new multi-family residential dwellings through the expansion or redevelopment of an under-utilized parcel surrounded by existing residential development.  Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – The City is encouraging private sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of multi-family dwellings necessary to serve the growth patterns of CSU.  Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development – The proposed development will maximize the potential of the subject property for housing, thereby positively influencing housing affordability.  Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – The project will serve to provide new housing for the burgeoning student body at the southwest corner of the campus immediately across Shields Street that is well served by public transportation.  Policy LIV 10.1 – Incorporate Street Trees – The proposed site plan will serve to preserve the majority of the existing ___16 crabapple trees along the Springfield frontage.  Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types – The proposed plan for five separate buildings will allow for variation in exterior materials, color, articulation and avoid the appearance of monotonous, standardized community.  Policy LIV 22.2 Creativity – The Carriage House Apartment Home community will be comprised of smaller buildings that are typically associated with single family homes.  Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns – The proposed plan is located in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The density associated with the proposed plan will support walking, biking and transit use while minimizing the reliance upon automobiles.  Policy T3.4 – Travel Demand Management – The proposed plan will minimize automobile dependence and maximize the choices among other modes of local and regional travel. 6 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012  Figure P-4 - Pedestrian Priority Areas – The subject property is located within the Downtown/CSU Pedestrian District. Additionally, the proposed project substantially addresses specifically and expressly defined and described policies outlined in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) including the following principals:  The WCNP was adopted in March of 1999. The plan identifies the subject property as a Redevelopment Area.(Map 2)  The WCNP Land Use and Housing Densities Plan identifies the subject property as Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoning acting as a buffer between the older, single family residences and the more intense uses of the Campus District and HMN zoning on the immediate east side of Shields Street. (Map 3) The WCNP identified this specific area as predominantly rental properties catering to university students and recognized that this area is growing to meet the housing demands of the university. Therefore, the scale and density of the proposed plan reflect that housing type. (Map 3)  The WCNP recommends that higher density uses such as the proposed Carriage House Apartment Homes development be located next to the CSU Main Campus. (Policy F7)  The WCNP encourages redevelopment within this area of the neighborhood, as the existing single family homes are being converted to multi-family uses in order to meet the demand of student housing (HO 4).  The WCNP specifically contemplates the subject property as a buffer area that can be made up of small-scale apartment buildings. (Future Housing Needs (B)).  The WCNP encourages the height of student housing complexes built adjacent to the CSU Main Campus to exceed 3 stories (Housing Design (B)). Granting the Modification of Standards is not detrimental to the public good and advances a use by right in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoning; to the contrary, the proposed project substantially benefits the City by reason of the fact that it substantially addresses important community needs that are specifically and expressly defined and described as policy considerations in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) all as directly applicable to the project site. 5. Staff Evaluation of Modification Requests: 7 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 The two LUC standards in question require the individually eligible structure 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. Granting of these modifications would impair the intent of the Section because it is feasible for the applicant to develop the land while preserving the individually eligible structure located on the subject property. The applicant is not willing to consider the “prudent alternatives” to demolition including retaining and rehabilitating the individually eligible structure, such as constructing a compatible multi-unit property around it, or incorporating it into the design of one of the proposed buildings, in such a manner as to meet the LUC requirements. 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 lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. A modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it would weaken the sense of heritage and area identity. Intent and Purpose of the 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 8 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 the character of existing neighborhoods.” The character of the existing neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the project are comprised of primarily smaller, single-family dwellings. Substantial Community Need: While the project provides multifamily housing in close proximity to CSU’s campus, 30 to 50 units is not considered substantial when compared to the community at large. It is important to note the definition of “substantial” in this instance, which Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “considerable in amount, value or worth.” In this application, 30 to 50 units would not meet that definition. In comparison, recently entitled multifamily projects, such as Choice Center, contain a total of 219 units. Another example of a substantial multifamily project in Fort Collins is the recently submitted Spring Creek Farms North, proposing 248 units total. Below is an illustrative table, highlighting a few of the recent, substantial student housing projects in Fort Collins. Project Name Location Number of Units Presidio Apartments North of Rock Creek Dr. between Lady Moon and Cinquefoil 240 Units The Grove Centre Ave. and Rolland Moore Dr. 218 Units Choice Center S. College Ave. and W. Prospect Ave. 219 Units The justification that Carriage House Apartments is providing a substantial benefit by substantially addressing an important community need stated in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, would not be prudent with only providing a relatively small number of units. 7. Findings of Fact In evaluating the request for two stand-alone modifications, Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of modifications to Section 3.4.6(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. a. A modification to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7 (E) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street to the maximum extent feasible, is detrimental to the public good because it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the surrounding neighborhood context. B. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (B) and Section 3.4.7 (E) would not result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the 9 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 10 proposed project would not substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. This is because the data reveals that the thirty to fifty dwelling units that would be provided is not substantial when compared to other projects on a city-wide basis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of both requests for modification. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Photo of the structure located at 1305 South Shields Street 4. Modification of Standard Request Narrative 5. Exhibits a. PDP 1 – Existing Structures b. PDP 2 – Proposed Site Plan with Existing Structures c. PDP 3 – Proposed Site Plan d. PDP 4 – Proposed Landscape Plan e. PDP 5 – Elevations f. PDP 6 – Visual Analysis of Proposed Project 6. November 2011 Landmark Preservation Commission Draft Minutes W PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST SOUTH DR W LAKE ST W PITKIN ST SPRINGFIELD DR LYNNWOOD DR BENNETT RD CITY PARK AVE WESTWARD DR FAIRVIEW DR UNIVERSITY AVE ELLIS DR DEL MAR ST BALSAM LN S H E E L Y D R JAMES CT LAKEWOOD DR PROSPECT LN BURTON CT HEATHERIDGE RD SUMMER ST H O B BIT ST W L A KE S T 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. 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1,125 1,350 Feet eL eg dnaparGciheSstcelPdetnios neC ilret en L eba sl craP sle saM k S SHIELDS ST SOUTH DR W LAKE ST BENNETT RD SPRINGFIELD DR W PITKIN ST WESTWARD DR CITY PARK AVE LYNNWOOD DR ELLIS DR DEL MAR ST JAMES CT LAKEWOOD DR BURTON CT WST LAKE ST SUMMER JAMES CT RL HMN CSU NCB LMN MMN CC 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 85 170 340 510 680 850 1,020 Feet Legend aGraphicsSelectedPoints Railroad Lines Streams and Ditches Centerline Labels Parcels CityFeatures Water Zoning ZONE Community Commercial Community Commercial North College Community Commercial Poudre River General Commercial Limited Commercial Service Commercial CSU Downtown Employment Harmony Corridor Industrial High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood SE view of 1305 South Shields Street 1 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS (Proposed by Applicant) As supported by evidence submitted at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the applicant submits the following findings of fact: Modification 2.8.2(H)(2) – Substantially Alleviate City-Wide Concern and Address Adopted Policies A. The granting of modifications to the General Development Standard Section 3.4.7(B) and to Section 3.4.7 (E) as stand alone modifications to allow demolition of 1305 South Shields are requested by the applicant and the property owner meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) as supported by the following specific findings: 1. Demolition of 1305 South Shields is not detrimental to the public good because the property lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for Landmark designation. To be designated as a Landmark, a property must not only be shown to be Significant, but must also have Exterior Integrity. 1305 South Shields has neither Exterior Integrity nor Significance. The Property does not possess the requisite degree of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity. The property has undergone three substantial additions such that the property does not retain or convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car garage that is not compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the Exterior Integrity of the structure. The garage has doubled the size of the property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and heritage is lost. The Property lacks the requisite Significance in that it fails to meet any one (1) or more of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. We find in the alternative that 1305 Shields would still lack Significance even if the record had demonstrated that the property had met one (1) or more of the standards for Landmark designation under Section 14-5, since the composite of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity are of insufficient degree such that 1305 South Shields has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant. The property is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) and is located in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District. The proposed plan is designed in full compliance with zone district standards articulated in the N-C- B zone district and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. When balanced against the community values expressly stated in the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the N-C-B zone district, the TOD overlay zone district, and the express intent and fiscal objectives of the property owner, and for the reasons stated above, we find that the requested modification of standard and demolition of the property is not detrimental to the public good. 2 2. Demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and further advances the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2 by: (i) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services (subsection C; and, TOD overlay district policy); (ii) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel through in-fill development approximate to Colorado State University and student services (subsection F; and, TOD overlay district policy of encouraging stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within TOD overlay district); (iii) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trials bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation through in-fill development approximate to the Mason Street Corridor, City Transit Center, Colorado State University sidewalk infrastructure and established bicycle routes in the WCNP area (subsection H; and, TOD overlay district policy); (iv) fostering a more rational relationship among residential and business uses for the mutual benefit of all through in-fill development approximate to established student services (subsection K; and, TOD overlay district policy); (v) encouraging development of vacant properties within established areas (subsection L; and WCNP); and, (vi) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods (subsection M; and, N-C-B zone district compliance). 3. Demolition substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs through advancing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, alleviating pressure on enforcement and violations of the “3-unrelated” law, and addressing the concerns identified in the Student Housing Action Plan. A strict application of the standard for the preservation and adaptive use of a property that lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for failing to meet any one (1) of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code (or in the alternative has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant), renders the project practically infeasible when balanced against the expressly stated goals of the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the TOD overlay zone district and the N-C-B zone district. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT (Proposed by Applicant) 1305 South Shields lacks Exterior Integrity and fails to meet any one (1) of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. 1305 South Shields has undergone three substantial additions such that the property does not convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car garage that is not compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the exterior integrity of the structure. The garage has doubled the size of the property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and heritage is lost. The property is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP). The property is located in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone 3 district with the stated policy of encouraging stable residential and commercial environments which as the appropriate integration of residential student housing approximate to Colorado State University commercial use and related services. The property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) zoning which is a transition zone between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones. The proposed project is consistent with the zone district requirements and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not meet any of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 in that that property: (1) is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and, (2) is not associated with the lives of a person significant in history. Mr. William Carlson resided in 1305 South Shields while growing up and completing his undergraduate degree. He moved out of the subject home in June of 1950 upon receiving his undergraduate degree (when he was married at the age of 21) never to live there again. During the 1960’s and up to 1968, William & Bev Carlson lived at 1301 S. Shields Street after buying that home from his grandmother. . None of the accomplishments listed as important achievements in Mr. Carlson’s life such as earning a Ph.D. in radiation biology from Colorado University Medical Center (Denver) or practicing as a veterinarian in Littleton or even chairing the Colorado State University veterinarian school radiology department occurred while living at 1305 S. Shields Street. Mr. Carlson moved from Fort Collins in 1968 and did not return to Fort Collins or Colorado to live or work after 1968. While Mr. Carlson is accomplished, we find that his life is not significant in history or significant to Fort Collins history such that it warrants a finding that the property meets this standard for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Such a finding is contrary to wishes of the applicant and Mrs. Beverly Carlson, the property owner and widow of Mr. Carlson. Any such designation would be without the consent of the property owner and does not reflect a delicate balance of community values in this instance; and, (3) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or posse high artistic values or represent a significant and distinguishable entity with components that lack individual distinction. The record demonstrates clearly (i) significant alterations and additions to the property with incompatible design, materials and workmanship, (ii) an unknown builder and architect, and, (iii) conveys significant weaknesses of design; the property is not a good example of either Cape Cod or Tudor Revival, and the combination of two styles does not create a successful eclectic design or significant and distinguishable entity. The design actually creates confusion as evident by the fact that when the property was determined individually eligible, the director and chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission concluded that the property was an example of Cape Cod architecture. The record now contains evidence that the property is characterized as a house with Tudor Revival influences in a report submitted by neighbors in opposition to the in-fill proposal which as submitted is in compliance with all zone district standards and that advances specific City policies; and, 4 (4) has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever. The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not possess Exterior Integrity since the property does not have the ability to convey any significance as defined under Section 14-1 of the Municipal Code. The property has no ability to convey significance for failure to meet the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. The record does establishes that the property lacks Significance and lacks Exterior Integrity. 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: Carriage House Apartments Modifications of Standard, MOD120001 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 16, 2012 To 12:15 a.m., February 17, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Gino Campana Jennifer Carpenter Kristin Kirkpatrick Brigitte Schmidt Butch Stockover 2 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: The next item is the Carriage House Apartments stand-alone 2 modification of standard, MOD120001. Staff, you want to go ahead and give us a report please. 3 MS. LEVINGSTON: Sure, thanks. This is a request for two stand-alone modifications. 4 One relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code regarding 5 preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one 6 for the demolition of an individually eligible structure. 7 The applicant is requesting to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South 8 Shields Street by demolishing the two existing single-family residences and associated 9 outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately 10 units per 10 building. The project will have a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. However, the 11 specific quantity of each bedroom type is not finalized at this time. 12 The project is located in the NCB district and is also within the transit oriented 13 development overlay district. This is a picture of the individually eligible structure at 1305 14 South Shields Street. This is taken from Springfield Drive looking at the individually eligible 15 structure, 1305 South Shields Street. This is where the individually eligible structure is located 16 relative to the proposed site plan. 17 The first modification is to Section 3.4.7(B), the General Standard that says “if the 18 project contains a site, structure, or object that is: 1) is determined to be individually eligible for 19 local landmark designation, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and 20 building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. 21 The second modification is to Section 3.4.7(E), Relocation or Demolition. A site, 22 structure, or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation 23 may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, 24 to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure, or object in accordance 25 with the standards of this Section and the preservation of the site, structure, or object is not 26 feasible. This is a definition from the Land Use Code of the term “maximum extent feasible:” no 27 feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or to 28 minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. 29 This is the proposed site plan for the Carriage House Apartments and is requiring the 30 demolition of the homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street. 1319 South Shields Street was 31 determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation and that’s why that 32 structure is not in question tonight. 33 This is a little bit of the neighborhood context. And we’ll see the individually eligible 34 structure is located to the left. This is looking west down Springfield Drive, the left is in the 35 summer, the right was recently taken in the winter. This is looking east from 1305 South Shields 3 1 Street. This is the property 1319 South Shields Street. This is looking west to Shields Street 2 from Springfield Drive. So, I’m right here and I’m looking out to South Shields Street. This is 3 looking across South Shields Street at 1301 South Shields Street, so the project and the 4 individually eligible structure in question is right here. This is 1301 South Shields Street, this is 5 directly across the street from 1305 South Shields Street. This is another picture taken across 6 Shields Street. You can see the property across the street and then the property in question 7 would be right over here. This is looking east across South Shields Street. These are 8 commercial properties that would be directly across the street from the property in question. 9 And this is the proposed site plan once again. 10 So, Section 3.4.7 contains standards requiring the preservation of structures determined to 11 be individually eligible for local landmark designation to the maximum extent feasible. The 12 applicant is not willing to provide for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 13 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in their proposal. While providing for infill 14 and redevelopment, as well as student housing, is a goal of City Plan and the West Central 15 Neighborhood Sub-Area Plan, providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. 16 Due to the fact that this project is only providing, at most, 50 dwelling units and is not 17 incorporating the historic home into the site design, both modifications are unable to be justified 18 because they do not substantially meet a City-wide need considered on a City-wide basis. That 19 concludes my staff presentation. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: I just have one quick question. On the one diagram, you know where 21 you have, there’s the yellow and the brown, and just the house is the only thing that needs to be, 22 not the chicken coop isn’t. 23 MS. LEVINGSTON: Which one are you asking? 24 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, just wanted to make, it might be one that the applicant has given 25 us that has that site plan that shows where the houses are right there, so it would just be though 26 the yellow, 1305, not the chicken coop that’s associated with it or anything like that, right? 27 MS. WILLIAMS: That’s correct, it’s the house only. 28 MS. LEVINGSTON: The associated outbuildings were determined not to be individually 29 eligible for local landmark designation so these outbuildings are not in question nor is 1319 30 South Shields Street. That is also not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The 31 only structure in question is right here, 1305 South Shields Street. 32 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anything else from staff? Okay, Kristin did you have a question? 34 Did I hear you? Jennifer? Okay, I thought I heard one of you guys ask a question, sorry. I’d like 35 to, if that’s the staff presentation, time for the applicant presentation, please. 4 1 MR. BAILEY: Good evening. My name is Chuck Bailey, I’m with Catamount 2 Properties. I’m pleased to be here tonight to present the Carriage House Apartments at 1305 3 South Shields Street. I think it’ll be a slightly different presentation than what you just saw, and 4 hopefully a little bit clearer. The issues are really just singular to the historic eligibility and then 5 the modification of standard. I was last here in April for another project that we’re under 6 construction on Laurel Street, called Pura Vida Place. It’s a 52-home community and we 7 anticipate opening for occupancy on July first. I know Mr. Campana is concerned about Laurel 8 Street, but we’re going to show you some reasons why we think this is a tremendous addition to 9 the community, and some subsequent slides. 10 My history is in multi-housing development, over 25 years and over 1,000 attached 11 homes. I was past president of the Colorado Apartment Association and I’ve managed over 100 12 different communities through some institutional employment earlier. I’m based in Longmont, 13 Colorado and I’m dedicated and focused on this business. I’m not a conglomerate, what you see 14 is what you get, so this is it. I found this picture in my travels at the CSU library and I thought it 15 was kind of interesting in terms of the Fort Collins and the CSU growth history and the patterns 16 that we’ve seen. This is Shields Street here, and this is a picture from May of 1957, and you can 17 see the vast changes that have occurred to the city. The particular site in question is right about 18 here, and I believe that’s Springfield Drive, with the 50’s ranch style homes being constructed 19 earlier that decade. And you can see that a lot of these old farm houses are still there and that’s 20 really the subject of tonight’s presentation, is what happens 50 years from now, if you want this 21 to retain that farmhouse character on the edge of Colorado State University. And you can see 22 some of the old Quonset huts too, I thought this was interesting that…Bev Carlson is here 23 tonight and she remembers those Quonset huts and the post World War II occupants were GIs 24 here going to school on the GI bill. That’s just east of Moby there I believe. So, this is the 25 neighborhood map, and you’ve seen some of this from Courtney’s presentation so I don’t want to 26 waste time, but I think it’s interesting to see that there’s some significant acreage in this part of 27 town, and I think that’s a meaningful element for the commission to consider is, going forward, 28 what happens here and how do you alleviate that need for student housing that we know is so 29 critical. 30 This is an aggregation of two different sites. The Carlson piece is about an acre and a 31 quarter and the adjacent site, 1319, which is a 50’s style ranch house that you saw in Courtney’s 32 presentation, that’s I think about a 17-18,000 square foot lot, so, in the aggregate, there’s an acre 33 and a half here on Shields Street, right across from campus. That’s hard to find, so we think 34 that’s meaningful. There are 16,000 cars a day travelling on Shields, so this is an NCB zoning 35 area, has been for 20 years. Obviously, that’s a buffer, it’s going to be hard to conceive of 36 development on Shields Street that embraces…it’s going to want to embrace that traffic and we 37 think that student oriented apartments can deal with that because of the proximity to campus. 38 But, the old houses that are there, it’s hard to envision the owners increasingly capitalizing those 5 1 houses, rehabilitating them, keeping them up with that kind of environment, in the current 2 scenario. 3 You can see some horse property back here. I believe Mr. Gene Fisher owns that 4 property and it’s considerable acreage as well. So, why a modification of the standard? And, 5 again, I can skip over this, but this is just the three sites that you saw and then the 1301 home 6 that the Carlson’s also own, is about where the north arrow is. Why the modification of 7 standard? It’s a single issue, I’ve not purchased the property, unlike the previous presentation 8 that you saw. So, I have a contract to buy this entire portion of ground, but I have not executed 9 that. I’ve been stymied in terms of producing plans and we’re not going to show you 10 sophisticated elevations or engineered plans or site plans tonight. It’s just a simple issue of 11 trying to define if the City sees this as a cultural resource, and if they want student housing 12 across from the campus. We understand and respect the Code and we think the Code really 13 embraces what we are going to do here. And I’m going to show you all of those components 14 tonight. But, effectively, you’re the decision maker and we are coming to you because the 15 Landmark Preservation Committee is really judge, jury, and jailer. They’ve made the decree and 16 we’ve talked to them on multiple occasions about it but this is it as far as an appeal of the 17 process. 18 We’re going to show you eleven reasons in the Land Use Code why the policies and the 19 plan that we’re going to put forth here makes sense…and, we’ve found seven policies and 20 objectives and goals in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. So, that’s a total of eighteen 21 elements, and there is one element against this to say if this is a cultural resource or not. So, the 22 background is, we had a pre-neighborhood meeting. It wasn’t an obligation, but we did that, and 23 didn’t really experience tremendous hospitality, but, nevertheless, we extended the opportunity 24 to talk and meet and we’ll do that again certainly, if we are to get past this hurdle. This board 25 will have another opportunity to weigh in on all of our site plans and we’ll certainly have a more 26 formal neighborhood meeting. We submitted a concept plan to the City in September, and that’s 27 when it was communicated to us that the staff had designated this as eligible for protection, this 28 particular home. And, at that time, they had designated the chicken coop in the back. There was 29 a split decision there. And the adjacent yellow house, the 50’s ranch house, was also a split 30 decision on its eligibility. We were looking at all three residences as being eligible for protection 31 and we went back and met with the Director and with Karen and provided them a presentation 32 from a member of the Denver Landmark Historic Commission, who produced a memo, that’s of 33 record, dated in October, and requested that they review their findings and reconsider for a 34 number of reasons. His opinion was that this home doesn’t have any exterior integrity and 35 character. That was declined and so we went to the mid-November Landmark Preservation 36 Committee hearing, and at that time, the City’s approach was that this is a Cape Cod house. 37 Why? I guess because it has shake shingles on the outside, but, other than that, there was no real 38 evidence that this is a Cape Cod house at all. During that presentation, there was, and the record 39 will support this through the minutes, there was some confusion on the staff report and it talked 6 1 about a garage with a bell tower with a window with ten lights or some such thing in the window 2 and Karen had realized that the staff report was incorrect. So, there were a lot of questions even 3 what the decision was made, if it was made on the right staff report or not, but it was made, 4 effectively, for a so-called Cape Cod house. 5 Bev Carlson, who’s here tonight, and she will speak, testified during that November 6 meeting, that she was not in favor of designating this house, and was opposed to it, and it could 7 jeopardize her contract with me. She talked about some of the elements of this house, 8 particularly this dormer up here being added later and how it was done without an architect, etc. 9 And, how the family often joked about how this house had morphed into something that it is 10 through the years. So, we asked for a deferral because of the confusion and the discussion 11 points, and the record even will show that several of the committee members objected to this 12 being a Cape Cod house and thought there were more Tudor elements that Cape Cod elements. 13 So, we felt like the best opportunity would be to push this another month and to resubmit 14 additional information to the Director and the Chairman of the committee. So, we did that, and, on December 6 th 15 , we met with the City, and we were presented with a report by a company 16 called Historitecture, presumably supplied to the City by the neighborhood group, I’m not sure of 17 that. But, at any rate, this report now contends that the house is Tudor revival. So, the house has 18 morphed from a Cape Cod to Tudor revival and we’re dumbfounded as this thing is a moving 19 target. And, additionally, it had a number of statements that were incorrect in terms of Mr. 20 William Carlson’s living situation at the house and it made assertions that it had historical 21 significance because of his residency in this house. And, I’m going to point out how those are 22 incorrect in a few minutes. So, we went to the December 14 th 23 hearing and it was determined from the board that the 24 house was now a Tudor revival home with some Cape Cod elements. So, here’s the 1301 house 25 across the street. The Carlson’s also own this house and it’s very confusing, and what has 26 happened is, and I want to point out how Bev Carlson, at one time lived in this home, but never 27 lived in 1305, which is contrary to the Historitecture report. This is the chicken coop in back and 28 it was initially deemed to be eligible and we showed pictures that it was altered and reduced in 29 size and then turned into a residential living arrangement…and so it was, that decision was 30 rescinded, and its eligibility status lifted. 31 At 1319, the same story. It was originally declared, on a split vote, to be eligible, and 32 that was rescinded based on extensive changes to the exterior, including this bay window, and 33 the addition of this two-car garage. So, here’s the overlay plan. You saw this once before, but, 34 again, here’s the 1305 house and this is the element where we considered how to present a site 35 plan that works with this house, and we don’t find one, because it takes 40% of the density out of 36 the plan. It’ll take those two buildings you see right here and right here, out, and leave us with 37 three building. Forty percent, it’s too much, and so that’s the crux of what we’re dealing with 38 right now. 7 1 So here are some of the alterations to 1305. You can see this gentleman…this was 2 presented to the Chairperson and the Director. This is a picture that Bev Carlson provided to 3 me…and this gentleman you can see a door out the back of this home. You can see the dormer 4 here, which is this dormer. But this entire two-car garage element was added after this picture 5 was taken, so that’s probably about forty percent of the footprint of this house was an addition to 6 the house and it’s all in a flat-roof condition. This is a southwest view, looking from the 7 southwest to the northeast, and you can see the backside of the garage…there’s really no detail in 8 terms of workmanship or, you know, extensive sort of craftsman-related kind of elements to it. 9 And this is the view from the north side and you can see the two-car garage here. This has 10 considerable street exposure and, because it’s not just in the backyard of this house, it faces on 11 Springfield Drive, and you really can’t see the pitch of the roof here but, trust me, it’s right 12 there…then the two car garage. 13 So, this house was originally a very small prairie style house and it has morphed into what it is now. We hired Gebau Structural Engineers on February 3 rd 14 , to come through and do an 15 analysis of this house in terms of the changes to this house and this report is of record. Gebau 16 thinks there are four different additions to this house that have taken place over the years and 17 they can get to the basement, and we’ve got photographs that are in the Rogue Architect’s 18 record, depicting the different framing patterns, different framing materials. There’s even siding 19 on this wall here from the old exterior. So, it’s their contention that this was the original house 20 right here. 21 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I’ve got to 22 object…the applicant is referring to evidence not in the record. It was submitted today, it’s not 23 appropriate, it was not relevant to any issue before the Board…and we would ask that the 24 Commission at least ask that the attorney before it goes any further, that this is an appropriate 25 form of questioning or that this is an appropriate reference to evidence that should not be in the 26 record. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Paul, unless you overrule me on this, I’m going to let the applicant 28 continue with his presentation and we’ll discuss your objection in a moment. 29 MR. BAILEY: At any rate, the original house being here and, there was a one-bedroom 30 configuration up in the attic upstairs above this lighter purple shade. Then, subsequent to that, 31 the kitchen was added, and then subsequent to that, the dining and family room and the entry 32 that’s considered to be so prominent in the Historitecture determination of Tudor Revival style. 33 And then finally, the two-car garage was added to the back of the residence. So, there’s 34 demonstrable evidence that this house has morphed almost like the rings of a tree, to what it is 35 today. It wasn’t this house in 1924 when it was built. And so here it is, and I don’t know if it 36 takes an expert or not to say that whatever this house is, it’s a mutt. And these are sliding glass 37 windows, they slide from side to side. That doesn’t meet any definition of a Tudor home. They 8 1 don’t match the windows down here and the Gebau report goes on to state that this dormer was 2 added later as a closet for the addition of the second bedroom upstairs. 3 The Historitecture report has a number of errors in it and I’d like to just hit the high 4 points here. It talks about a garage, a single-car garage that served this house at one point in 5 time, in paragraph 29, and that’s certainly of record. That’s emphatically incorrect, this house is 6 elevated. This house is three feet off the ground so there was never a garage there. It also states, 7 through hearsay, that Bev Carlson testified that this dormer was added to the back of the house, 8 in paragraph 29 of the report. That’s completely erroneous, you saw the back dormer in the 9 other picture. It was this front dormer that was added subsequently. On paragraph 32, it talks 10 about ownership and it refers to William Carlson having got a PhD and having been the head of 11 the radiology department, and then later the President of the University of Wyoming, and it 12 refers to this experience in Littleton, and implies that he did this in this house. He got married in 13 June of 1950 and he got a degree from Texas A&M, and those are two, maybe the most 14 important things that happened in his life. Certainly marrying that lovely woman right there. 15 But, he left this house, and Bev Carlson will testify she never lived in this house, so it’s 16 completely erroneous. How could he have been the President of the University of Wyoming and 17 live in this house? We can celebrate that he was the President of the University of Wyoming, 18 maybe not, and that’s a notable position, but he certainly didn’t do it from this location. So, its 19 very similar to saying that this is Abe Lincoln’s cabin, and we need to preserve it. 20 So, this house has no integrity, and these are some of the reasons why. This is the criteria 21 for Tudor Revival architecture and there’s nine key components here. Half-timbering elements, 22 steeply pitch roof that’s greater than a 12:12, casement windows, no, no, no. The only thing it 23 has is clipped gables, out of nine elements. No bay window. The Cape Code attributes, its got 24 two of the five, but, you know, we morphed off that subject to Tudor Revival. So, effectively, 25 this is the conglomeration of two architectural styles that don’t even match each other…they’re 26 in conflict with each other. So, here’s the criteria: exterior integrity, no, too many changes, 27 landmark designation…I don’t know why the must is in there, sorry about that…integrity, 28 significance, no, he didn’t do anything historical at this home. 29 So here’s the proposed site plan, and this site plan is appreciably less than the standard. 30 We’re not looking for approval of this site plan but we want to give you a flavor and an idea of 31 what could potentially happen here if we could move forward. And, this is, I think, I’d like to 32 say a little bit of a game changer for Fort Collins in that these are smaller apartment buildings. 33 These aren’t 24-plex buildings like you saw at The Grove or, certainly the common situation 34 with multi-housing. These are 10-plex buildings. They are approximately 10,000 square feet 35 each, in terms of gross square footage, and they have tons of exterior light and they really 36 provide, I think, a living situation that would be ideal. And, it’s only about sixty percent of the 37 floor area ratio that this site could endorse. So, when we go to the maximum extent feasible, 38 we’ve grabbed the Land Use Code and we’ve said we want these buildings to be compatible with 39 the neighborhood, to be smaller, and to be more individualized. And this is a streetscape view of 9 1 potentially looking southwest from the corner of Springfield and Shields and you can see a 2 couple of the buildings there that would front along Shields. You know, a very rudimentary 3 sketch again, we apologize for the level of sophistication here, but it give you an idea that, you 4 know, you’re not going to see a whole bunch of entry doors and it’s designed to have porches 5 and articulation and to look like single family homes. 6 So, some specifics: again, 64,000 square feet of land area. Floor area we are proposing is 7 36,000. The maximum per NCB zoning is almost 65,000. I don’t know if we’d have thirty or 8 fifty homes, but you know, we’re targeting maybe one hundred beds for this site and fifty-two 9 parking spaces as well. Here’s some of the attributes of the City Plan that we are adhering to. 10 Again, as I said, there’s eleven of these. Obviously it’s an infill location, it’s a higher density 11 location on transit lines. We’re going to expand an underutilized parcel here, surrounded by 12 existing residential. It’s an attempt to develop adequate supply of housing and maximizing land 13 for residential development. It’s certainly focused to accommodate student populations. We’re 14 going to keep the street trees on the perimeter, there’s some wonderful old crab trees from way 15 back in time, and we certainly plan to detach the sidewalk. The sidewalk there, by the way, right 16 now is thirty inches wide, and certainly not handicapped accessible or really usable. There will 17 be some variation in those buildings that you saw. I think it’s a creative concept and it’s 18 obviously supportive to transit patterns. The City’s got vehicle miles travelled goals and, you 19 know, reduction goals, and it’s certainly a pedestrian focused kind of situation to be across the 20 street from a major college campus. And there are, as I said, seven, I think, West Central 21 Neighborhood goals and objectives that we’re adhering to. The maps show this area as being a 22 redevelopment area from, I think, as long as twenty years ago. Map three depicts this as NCB 23 zoning, which accommodates multi-housing, and policy F.7 endorses higher density. And the 24 future housing needs certainly encourages smaller-scale apartment buildings which is what 25 we’ve tried to accommodate. And, the housing design B prefers three-story buildings. So, this is 26 pretty interesting right here in terms of getting to the heart of is this a substantial benefit to the 27 community. 28 And I hired THK, which is a very notable real estate analytical company in Denver, and I 29 asked them to take a swath of college environments similar to Fort Collins, in our immediate 30 area, and I didn’t cherry pick, you know, I took the University of Wyoming. You know, I mean, 31 equal opportunity analytic presenter, but, and they’ll never be accused of being a high-density 32 environment I don’t think. But, we took CU, and I know that Fort Collins doesn’t want to 33 emulate CU, but you can see the density in terms of people per acre, and this is a six-block area 34 around all of these campuses. So, we uniformly applied a six-block area. We excluded on- 35 campus housing and we looked only at the housing that surrounds the campus. And you 36 wouldn’t think we’d need proof that there’s not a lot of density here, but here it is. There’s 37 thirteen and a half people per acre around CSU, in that radius. There’s twenty-one in Boulder, 38 which is almost fifty percent higher. Even UNC has higher density around its campus than 39 Colorado State University. Nebraska, if some of you know, has an Interstate on the north side, 10 1 so it’s really kind of a deceiving example because there’s no development on the north side of 2 their campus, and we stayed within the confines of that campus. And BYU, ten years ago 3 BYU… 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Sir, could you just explain what the blue and the red are. We can’t 5 really see them and I don’t think we got that in our packets. 6 MR. BAILEY: Sure, it’s population, slightly over 20,000 persons in that six block area 7 around campus. All the way around the perimeter of the campus, and these campuses are all 8 different sized and different shapes too. So, rather than taking a circle, we took a square, a six- 9 block square from the outer perimeter of the campus. And then the red is the total housing units 10 within that same proximity. So, in the case of Colorado State, there’s maybe seven thousand 11 housing units, so, the average number of people per acre then was calculated based on THK’s, 12 and they used 2010 census data by the way, and they determined it to be thirteen and a half 13 people per acre for the CSU situation. And, BYU, as I said, they instituted a comprehensive plan 14 eleven years ago and looked at their surrounding area and it’s really working for them. I met 15 some gentlemen that are building a project there as we speak but they’ve got almost triple the 16 density around their campus than CSU has. And, University of Kansas…I’ve not been to 17 Lawrence, Kansas, and then again, Wyoming kind of pulls the numbers down, but I just took 18 what we could get. 19 And this is another interesting chart, this is the comparative density in terms of dwelling 20 units per acre and, again, I got to tell you that CSU is at the bottom of the barrel here. Even 21 UNC has more dwelling units per acre than CSU does, using the same set of structure in terms of 22 population in 2010 numbers. I actually asked THK to throw in The Grove and the Capstone deal 23 at Stuart and South College, and it barely moves the needle. This number goes from 5.3 to 5.6. 24 So, I mean those are all positive moves to get students close to campus but, it’s going to take a 25 concerted effort to change this environment and provide the 1,500 beds a year that Student 26 Housing Action Plan is seemingly looking for. 27 And this is an interesting density chart…these are a comparison of newer projects, maybe 28 in the last five years, and what their density is in terms of persons per acre, again, and dwelling 29 units per acre. And you can see the subject property, again, we deliberately scaled the density 30 back in order to address the Land Use Code, all those eleven components I talked about and 31 smaller building. But, at any rate, we’re still achieving sixty-seven people per acre, and thirty- 32 four units per acre. Pura Vida, the project that I’m doing presently, is one hundred people per 33 acre. And I know the concern about Laurel Street is strong and I appreciate that, but I think 34 these are the locations where the City has to look at it and say, this is where we can address 35 student housing. If you can’t do it across the street from the campus, I don’t know where you’re 36 going to do it. Way down the Mason Street Corridor line maybe, I don’t know. But you can look 37 at The Flats, you can look at The Grove even, and there are twenty-three people per acre, they’re 38 eight units per acre because there’s so much land area that’s gobbled up in terms of that wetlands 11 1 and that site. The Choice does raise the bar a bit, that’s one hundred people per acre, that’s a 2 four-story building project, as you probably all recall. And, that’s thirty-four dwelling units per 3 acre. And, Presidio, it’s really not a student deal, but it’s new, and it’s very suburban and very 4 low density, but I put it in here because Courtney had referred to it in her staff report as a reason 5 for denial. And the Clock Tower is, you know, a very large three-story building. So, here we 6 are, I mean, is this detrimental to the public good? Are we going to impair and abuse the Land 7 Use Code? We’ll be back in front of you on that subject, so, we aren’t asking for approval of 8 these plans, we’re just asking for you to provide a modification to standard to the so-called 9 historic eligibility issue. Will we substantially alleviate a defined City-wide concern and 10 substantially benefit and address important community needs described in the Comp Plan? I 11 think so, and will a strict application render this project infeasible? Yes, I’m taking forty percent 12 out of a project that’s already had a reduced level of density in order to adhere to the Code. It 13 makes the project undoable. 14 MS. SCHMIDT: Can you explain that a little more? I just don’t understand where you’re 15 losing forty percent by having to just… 16 MR. BAILEY: Sure, can we back up to the slide, it’s probably ten or fifteen slides earlier, 17 or see the whole thing. It’s the overlay slide. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: You’re losing forty percent of the land area or the… 19 MR. BAILEY: It’s two out of the five. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: And why exactly would you be losing them? 21 MR. BAILEY: Because, if you stand on this issue that this house is worthy of protection, 22 we can’t build two of the five buildings on the site. This house takes up that much of the site 23 plan. 24 MS. SCHMIDT: And is that because there’s a certain distance around a historically 25 designated home that you have to… 26 MR. BAILEY: You certainly can’t build within thirty feet, the fire department, there’d be 27 a certain distance from that building that we couldn’t get any closer to it. Here’s the house, and 28 here’s the two buildings, and that’s two out of five. So, that’s the forty percent. And another 29 factor is, you know, which I think is important, is we’re hiring an on-site manager at Pura Vida. 30 We have fifty-two homes and we have an on-site manager. And you talk about the dynamics of 31 managing a student population. We’ve got some students right here that are going to speak in a 32 minute about the student housing situation but, we’re going to have a person there. And, if you 33 take a project that’s contemplated to have that kind of critical mass, and you say, well, why don’t 34 you just build it with thirty units. Well, we clearly cannot do that. So, we’re actually going the 35 wrong direction. It’s cutting our nose off in spite of our face. The problems, the social 12 1 problems, of managing student housing takes a certain level of critical mass, and it’s just out of 2 the equation, you know, if we take that project and make it thirty units rather than fifty. 3 So, in the end, go ahead Todd. I won’t waste a lot of time in this. There are some strong 4 fees to City agencies. The current taxable value of this assemblage of property is $500,000, and 5 it’s conceivable that this will be a $7 million project so you’re talking about a factor of maybe 6 ten to twelve to the School District in terms of property tax revenues that goes on ad infinitum. 7 And, you know, it’s on the bus route, it’s pedestrian oriented. 8 In conclusion, it’s an NCB redevelopment area, we’re conforming…we’re not going to 9 come back here and ask for variances on floor area ratios and all of those kinds of things. The 10 Student Housing Action Plan, I’ve mentioned, you know, shows a strong need for housing, 11 potentially 1,500 beds per annum, and it’s a high-quality community. So, the Planning staff’s 12 recommendation of denial defined substantial is the amount of value or worth. I mean, that’s 13 entirely subjective and I think that’s a message to say that this fifty unit project doesn’t have 14 enough value or worth to us as a community. That seems dangerous to me. The definition I 15 found in Webster’s, and maybe I have a different dictionary, but, the definition I found was 16 substantial means important. And I think that’s what this is, it’s important to the community. 17 And, it’s honestly, you’re going to hear a lot of testimony that this is a problem, but, you know, 18 we’re not the problem, we’re the solution. Thank you. Oh, and I’d like to introduce Bev Carlson 19 if I could just for a moment and have her just speak briefly. 20 MS. CARLSON: Well, I am Bev Carlson, and I am the owner of the property at 1305 21 South Shields. I find myself a little surprised that I’m standing here before you this evening 22 talking to you about this. But, I, as the owner of that property, I agree with, I do not agree, 23 excuse me, do not agree, with the eligibility for historic, nor will I accept, historic designation on 24 my property. It is really not a conceivable thing to do. I have a contract on the property at this 25 time, which will naturally be in jeopardy if this is continued. And that will be, I don’t know 26 what will happen, because the current contract will not be fulfilled and I don’t feel that the 1305 27 South Shields Street is a proper place to put a historical designation on. I would like to tell you 28 also that the dormers on the front of the quote Cape Cod house, that they said were part of a 29 Cape Cod situation, were put on, I’m sorry I don’t have the date, because my husband and I left 30 in ’68 and went to Wyoming, but those were added on, and I know that. I told the Committee 31 that, but I don’t think they heard what I said, to begin with. I would like very much for you to 32 consider what we’re asking for this evening. And, I hope the decision is a good one. Thank you. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 34 MR. BAILEY: And, I’d like to introduce, again, similar to the last hearing, a motion, and 35 some specific findings, on what I’ve just spoken about. And, also, I have some elements from 36 both the Gebau Structural Engineers report that I showed you and the Rogue Architectural report 37 that was part of this presentation. 13 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I said this earlier as well, anything that we’re getting now, first of 2 all, I’m going to lean on the City Attorney in a moment to determine whether or not it is relevant 3 to what we can do in our purview. Second of all, then we really haven’t had the time to be able 4 to consider it, so I think there’s a couple points. I’m going to wait for the City Attorney to give 5 us his advice on this matter, and then we can proceed from there. 6 MR. BAILEY: And I understand, I’m not asking that you go back and declare it not 7 eligible, I’m asking for you to look at the facts that have been presented tonight and realize that, 8 or come to a realization that, this is a substantial benefit to the community and this, to the 9 greatest extent possible, we’ve tried to plan around it, but we’ve adhered to the Land Use Code, 10 which inhibits that, and we’re asking for the ability to demolish the structure for a one-year 11 period. We obviously cannot do that, we have to come back in and present detailed plans, but 12 we’re thwarted from doing that because of this hurdle that we’re faced with right now. Thank 13 you. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. What we’ll be doing right now is getting a staff 15 response to the applicant presentation. While Paul is taken away here for a moment, does other 16 staff, professional staff, have any comments right now, before Paul comes back. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yeah, I do have a few. Staff believes that granting of these 18 modifications would impair the intent of the Section because it is feasible for the applicant to 19 develop the land while preserving the individually eligible property. The second is, if you read 20 the Code citations on page eight of the staff report, “the decision maker may grant a modification 21 of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the 22 public good; and, that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard 23 would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an 24 existing, defined, and described problem of City-wide concern or would result in a substantial 25 benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an 26 important community need, specifically and expressly defined and described in the City’s 27 Comprehensive Plan or an adopted policy.” While the project does provide multi-family housing 28 in close proximity to CSU’s campus, thirty to fifty units, staff does not consider substantial when 29 compared to the community at large, and we really feel that substantial is mentioned about three 30 times in that justification. And, we compared with other projects, like The Grove, Choice 31 Center, Presidio Apartments, that have 240 units, 218 units, and 219 units, fifty units in 32 comparison, we don’t feel meets that substantial clause of the modification criteria, and that’s 33 why we are recommending denial. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Paul, can I put you on the hot spot on this one? I think that there’s 35 probably a very central theme that we need to establish here pretty quick, and that is our purview 36 in evaluating whether or not the historic preservation program, whether they’re finding 37 something that we have the purview to be able to overturn, essentially. 14 1 MR. ECKMAN: Well, as I said with respect to the last application, the question of 2 eligibility is decided by the Landmark Commission and by the Chair and the Planning Director 3 in connection with demolition. That’s not this Board. And, you have received, I have 4 documents here, one entitled Rogue Architecture, and one entitled Gebau Consulting Structural 5 Engineers, another one Oz Architecture Urban Design/Interior Design. Now, there’s been some 6 objection to the relevance of these, I think, all three documents. 7 MR. BANTHUM: Only the first two you mentioned, sir, are the new ones…My name is 8 Andrew Banthum, I’m a neighbor, and I apologize for the interruption before, it was very 9 important to make a record the moment these documents were referenced. These documents 10 came in today, they’re not appropriate to the issues being considered by the Board today. They 11 should not be part of the record and I need to make a formal motion that they be stricken and not 12 considered by the Board. And, again, I apologize for the nature by which I had to make that but 13 there was no mechanism without actually standing up the first time it was referenced. 14 MR. ECKMAN: Well, what’s your opinion on the Oz Architecture one? 15 MR. BANTHUM: Is that the one that was part of the LPC…? 16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 17 MR. BANTHUM: Okay, again, for the same reason, I don’t feel it’s relevant today. 18 That’s not new, that was part of a different process, but it is not all relevant to what is being 19 considered today. 20 MR. ECKMAN: So your objection is to all three? 21 MR. BANTHUM: Yes, my objection is to all three. 22 MR. ECKMAN: Okay, now I don’t think the Board has received the Oz one. The LPC 23 did, but not this Board. Unfortunately, the other two, you got in e-mail today because staff sent 24 it out to you. So, I think, technically, it’s already in the record. Now, there are two choices. 25 You could either decide it’s relevant, keep it in the record, then the applicant may want to 26 explain why it’s relevant to the discussion tonight. Or, if you decide it’s not relevant, you could 27 vote on a motion to strike it from the record, or you could simply agree that it is not going to be 28 considered in your calculations of your decision tonight. So, I think that at this point it might be 29 good for the applicant to explain how it happens that these documents, which seem to go to the 30 question of eligibility, are relevant to your consideration tonight. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Agreed. 32 MR. BAILEY: Mr. Chairman, according to step seven of the Public Hearing, Conduct of 33 Public Hearing, subsection B, Rights of All Persons, any person may appear at a public hearing 34 and submit evidence. So, I think that’s what’s been accomplished here. The fact of relevancy of 15 1 these documents is that, again, we’re not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, 2 these are just support materials that were part of the slide show. So, I don’t think there’s 3 something that…the Oz documents were submitted to the Landmark Preservation Committee so 4 those should be long in the tooth and those aren’t anything that’s, you know, any recent 5 revelation. You know, I referred to those in November and December. But the Gebau report and 6 the Rogue report, you know, we’re not asking that your decision hinge on those reports. But 7 they are part of the circumstance that has affected Bev Carlson, and certainly myself. Thank 8 you. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does anybody on the Board have a comment right 10 now, of any sort? 11 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my only comment would be…was since we got them so late, we 12 really haven’t looked at them anyhow, I don’t know about other Board members. So, I can’t say 13 that I would be using that information in any way this evening I guess. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Paul, could you, one more time for us, just tell us what our 15 options are in this. I think I heard them but I just want to hear it again. 16 MR. ECKMAN: I think your obligation is to receive all relevant evidence that is offered 17 to you in support of the applicants’ position or any opponents’ position. The question you are 18 trying to decide is: is it relevant? It sounds like the view is that it’s not relevant. So, now, if you 19 think it’s not relevant, you can still keep it in the record, and it’ll go if there’s an appeal to 20 Council, it would go to the Council, but I would advise you that if you think it’s not relevant, 21 then you shouldn’t think about it. Just set it aside and don’t use it in your thought process. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Right, okay, is that something that the Chair needs to make a 23 decision on, or us as a Board? 24 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think you need to vote on that, I think you can just follow the 25 direction that I gave you not to think about it if you determine that it’s not relevant. You may 26 want to vote on its relevancy just to decide whether to strike it or not from the record. That’s 27 another option that you could have. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Gino? 29 MR. CAMPANA: I think we could just move forward and not think about it in our 30 decision. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, I think it’s to an issue and a decision that is not relevant for 32 us, and that is whether or not the property is eligible. And so I think that because that is not in 33 our purview, the material that we received late was only to that, as to whether or not the LPC 34 Chair and the Director were wrong in their decision. That’s not for our consideration. And, so, 35 since it’s not for us to consider, the material is irrelevant. And, so, I’m going to recommend to 16 1 the Board that we do put it aside and we focus on the factors and the evidence we have that we 2 can consider. Are we in agreement or does anybody disagree? 3 MR. CAMPANA: Yeah, because I think if they do appeal it to Council, it is in their 4 purview to look at that data and make a decision from there so let’s leave it in the record. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Right, okay, so Paul then, with that being decided and stated, then 6 at this point we could see if there’s any more staff response to what the applicant presented. If 7 staff has any more comments about that; if not, we would go to public testimony. 8 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The only comment I’ll make is to the question of whether it is a 9 Tudor building or a Cape Cod, or some variation of those. You can lay the blame for it being 10 called a Cape Cod squarely with me. The building probably more accurately would be called 11 eclectic or a vernacular building. It’s basically Tudor with a few Cape Cod elements to it, 12 especially based upon its shingling and so forth. But, I know it seems to, for some reason, have 13 brought up a lot of discussion about the style and that really is not…its really a moot point. Lay 14 the blame with me on that one. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, I mean, that’s where I think that we need to establish as a 16 Board, I mean, it’s really at this point how it was determined to be eligible, individually eligible 17 structure, is not in our purview. And, so, it is what it is, and that was that finding I would say. 18 And so, the applicant can’t make any more about it so I think we’ll just take that as it was from 19 the staff report and we’ll move forward that it is eligible. 20 With that, the public should have the opportunity now to address this issue. Again, I 21 don’t think that it’s necessary to get into whether or not, you know, getting into the architectural 22 styles, into how it is or is not worthy of designation or not, or that it’s eligible, because I think 23 that’s been established and that’s not in our purview. That would be something for back to the 24 LPC and the Director, and ultimately to City Council. So, just saying that in the interest of time 25 and brevity and germane to be able to come and speak to us. I’ll give every speaker three 26 minutes, if you would state your name and address for the record and sign in please. How many 27 folks would like to address? Please raise your hand. Don’t you guys want to go home tonight? 28 MS. SCHMIDT: If you are going to repeat something that someone else has already said, 29 just say “I agree with the previous speaker.” We don’t have to hear it again for three minutes, 30 thank you. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, please go ahead and line up. I want to give you the 32 opportunity, and it was just a joke, we’ll take the time that we need to get through this. If you 33 want to come up and have your three minutes, let’s do it. Again, name and address, and please 34 sign in, and don’t steal the pen. 17 1 MR. SANDVIG: My name is Patrick Sandvig. I’m just speaking on behalf of students, 2 just talking about how we do need more student housing around the CSU campus. I’m a second 3 generation CSU student and my brother and me both realized how, as the years have gone on, 4 it’s harder to find housing for school. Starting to look for housing has to begin in January so you 5 have to make decisions on who your roommates are, who’s going to be there when people don’t 6 even know if they’re coming back. And these processes are just getting sooner and sooner that 7 you’re making decisions on what you’re doing next fall semester during the fall semester. So, I 8 just think it’d be really beneficial to have more student housing around the campus. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, next speaker please. 10 MR. ANDERSON: My name is Reggie Anderson, 1300 Skyline Drive. Well, I’m going 11 to go ahead and agree with Pat. Also, I would like to make it known that, just the proximity to 12 campus, I mean, there’s student housing, it’s just that the closeness to campus. That’s going to 13 cut down on a lot. We don’t have to worry about as many people getting parking passes at CSU, 14 so I know personally that you can go at a certain time to campus and not have a spot, even 15 though you bought a pass. So, I figure if you have, what, its fifty units, so sixty, seventy kids 16 that are living in these units, those are sixty, seventy kids that don’t have to buy a parking permit. 17 That helps. Also, just the daily commute, the traffic, everything. If you have these people that 18 don’t have to drive either, just walk across the street, that’s going to cut down on a lot. And, also 19 I know that Chuck is, he’s very passionate about what he does. It’s not going to be some, you 20 know, mediocre place, it’s going to be a very nice place, very conveniently located. We’re just 21 going to have a lot…it’s a benefit to the City, it’s not a drawback, so that’s where I’m at. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. How many more folks want to speak to this? Sir, 23 before you speak, if you don’t mind, when you’re done, would you put that sign-up sheet right 24 over there by staff? Karen, will you take that sign up sheet? If you’re going to speak, please 25 sign up as the speaker is finishing up so we can go. When you’re done signing in, then you can 26 come up and chat when it’s your turn. Sorry, sir, go ahead. 27 MR. DELINE: My name is Ben Deline, and I live at 609 City Park Avenue, and it’s 28 pretty close to campus there. It’s nice, I can walk and ride my bike, you know, a lot of activity 29 through there. And, the kid that lives with me, actually, he’s one of my best friends, and he used 30 to live down off of Harmony and Shields, just north of Front Range there. And, that is, you 31 know, it took him fifteen minutes to get to class every day because he couldn’t find anything 32 near to campus. And, the same thing, my girlfriend lives 2525 West Lake Street which is a ways 33 off. And at both of those locations, both neighbors do not like living next to college students, I 34 mean, we stay up late, we’re loud, we like to play loud music and drink beer. That’s what 35 college is. And, having a place like the Carriage House closer to campus will help draw people 36 that are attending CSU out of society and clump them where they should be around campus 37 instead of disbursing them throughout Fort Collins. I mean, Fort Collins is a college town, you 38 know, and the students should be located around campus and I feel like, if people have a problem 18 1 with the students, then they should separate themselves from the students and this helps make 2 that possible. Giving students a place to live near to campus, I feel like makes a society, Fort 3 Collins, a better place to live for people that are attending CSU and people that are not. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Again, if you can, sign in while you’re waiting. 5 MR. MERTZ: My name is Nick Mertz, I live at 517 South Whitcomb. I’m a senior 6 marketing student. I came in here as a transfer, I was at UNC for two years and then came here, 7 and I think the biggest problem I found, was is that there wasn’t really too much nice housing 8 developments around campus. I lived off Horsetooth and Shields in the Seasons and that was 9 really the nicest thing at the time, other than maybe the Flats. And, you know, the Flats had a 10 waiting list, I came in here late and it wasn’t realistic to wait on that waiting list. You know, I 11 had to commute every day to school. Having something like this new apartment complex that’s, 12 you know, planned to go up, is huge and it’s great. It’s going to be a great opportunity for 13 students who, like myself, want, you know a little bit nicer housing much closer to campus. The 14 house I live in now, it’s almost embarrassing to live in, it’s so run down, and we have an 15 opportunity for someone to come in here and clean it up, literally. I mean, if you look at the 16 place, you clean it up, it’s going to look great, there’s going to be a lot of opportunities there. 17 And, another huge point to make is, right as you’re driving into school, you have out of state 18 people that are coming to visit the campus for the first time, you’re driving north on Shields, 19 campus is on the right, coming to the left you see this beautiful new complex there. You know, 20 I’m a student, I’m going to want to live there, I’m going to say, wow, this is real nice. The City 21 has done some nice things to put this apartment complex up. You go all the way to Laurel, you 22 turn right, you know, Pura Vida, that other apartment complex right there, and then you continue 23 down to the Flats, then you see the Oval with all the new construction that’s going on on campus. 24 It’s going to look really nice, it’s going to attract a lot of new students, I think, and it’s only 25 going to help the community you know. And I know some people are disgruntled that, you 26 know, that an apartment complex is going to be built close to their homes, but, again, it is a 27 location that’s geared toward students. All the businesses around there are geared with the 28 student in mind, they target student demographic. So, you know, overall, I only think this is 29 going to help the community and help students at CSU. Thank you. 30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 31 MR. DOURAS: Good night Council, my name is Greg Douras, I live at 1205 Springfield. 32 I’m a CSU graduate and a CSU graduate student, and an employee of CSU. My live goes to 33 them. I would like you to support the staff decision to deny this project for the following 34 reasons. The site that’s going to be demolished, or proposed to be demolished, doesn’t appear to 35 infringe on the buildings very much. It seems like the site could be designed such that that 36 building could be preserved. And, that is a designated site. The neighborhood around it has no 37 three-story buildings and no multi-family housing. Both Bennett Drive and Springfield Drive are 38 all single-family houses back to City Park. City Park is the first point at which you see any 19 1 multi-family units there. Third point is, the project in its current state seems infeasible, there’s 2 not enough parking for the number of proposed beds, and there seems to be a lack of concrete 3 plans at this point since there’s no site to develop, as the developer stated himself. Finally, 4 there’s been no alternative for the single-family sites, or the single lots, as in the previous case 5 you considered tonight. There was a discussion of developing each lot individually, and not 6 clumping them all into a multiple lot development. So I believe that all those are important in 7 the decision to deny that. Thank you for your time. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. One thing I just want to say is I want to remind 9 everybody, is that the focus of what we’re considering tonight is not a development proposal of 10 any sort. We’re not looking at whether, what it’s going to be. It is specific to a stand-alone 11 request to modify one of the standards relating to the demolition of an eligible residence, or 12 structure, for historic preservation. So, I’m sorry, continue. 13 MR. SUTHERLAND: Eric Sutherland of Fort Collins, and I just wanted to quickly note 14 that Fort Collins does not yet have a Student Housing Action Plan. City Council did have a 15 worksession on that just two nights ago in this building but it’s very preliminary you know. 16 They’re just going through the process and the applicant did speak to that as though it were 17 carrying the weight of perhaps the City Plan, or a neighborhood plan that might be in existence, 18 but it’s not there yet. It hasn’t been vetted on, it hasn’t been voted on and I’d really expect the 19 City staff to inform the Council and the public of those types of facts when they come up. 20 Thanks. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MS. QUACKENBUSH: Hi, my name is Sandy Quackenbush, and I am a neighbor of the 23 proposed project, and I first want to thank the committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of 24 the neighborhood about this project. And, I want to provide a little bit of history about how we 25 got here tonight. Our reading of the Municipal Code and Land Use Code tells us that the City 26 places a very high value on historic structures, and that if someone wants to develop a property 27 that contains an historic structure, or one that is eligible for historic designation, the developer 28 must attempt to preserve the structure and integrate it into the development plan. We think it is 29 important to review the history of the applicant’s dealings with the City so that you have a clear 30 picture of his objectives. The applicant elected several months ago to pursue demolition of all 31 the structures on the properties through the demolition alteration review process in the Municipal 32 Code, because he believes that none of the buildings have any historic significance. The 33 Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Landmark 34 Preservation Commission Chair made three separate determinations that the house at 1305 South 35 Shields is eligible for an historic designation. The applicant was afforded two opportunities at 36 two separate preliminary hearings in November and December of 2011, to explore alternatives to 37 substantially preserve the house. But, at both hearings, he chose instead, to argue against the 38 eligibility determination. He did not make any explanation of what he had tried to do to comply. 20 1 Since no solution was found for preservation or integration of the house, because none 2 was offered, the next step in the demolition alteration review process was for the applicant to 3 submit all of the required documentation and then schedule a final hearing. One of the required 4 submittal items is an approved development plan, and to my knowledge, no development plan 5 has been submitted to date. Since the review process for a development plan would require 6 compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, the applicant tried to get the LPC, during the 7 December meeting, preliminary hearing, to move from the demolition alteration review process 8 to a different process under the Municipal Code: the landmark designation process. Historic 9 designation was clearly contrary to the applicant’s position that the house is not eligible. He 10 asked the LPC to designate the house as a historic structure without having complied with any of 11 the procedural requirements of that process. Escape from the demolition alteration review 12 process and the development review requirements by requesting a decision from the LPC on 13 historic designation would have allowed an immediate appeal of the decision to City Council. 14 The LPC, properly, refused to allow this. The applicant’s options were clear. I guess I’m done. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, I’m sorry, that’s your three minutes. Next speaker please. 16 MR. ROUNAK: Hello, my name is Joel Rounak, I live about 500 feet from the site. The 17 applicant’s options were clear: design a development that preserves and incorporates the house, 18 or prove that he cannot after attempting to do so to the maximum extent feasible. Mr. Bailey has 19 done neither. He has, instead, chosen to ask for a modification which would excuse him from 20 such efforts. With that, I’d like to cede my time to Mr. Taylor. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MR. TAYLOR: David Taylor, 1302 Bennett. We have twelve neighbors left. From here 23 forward, we’d like to pool our time. We’re not going to take the whole time but a couple of us 24 would like to speak longer than three minutes. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let’s see here, I mean, there’s twelve folks from the same 26 neighborhood. Normally what we’ll do is we will give a representative of the neighborhood a 27 little bit more time. So, it’s a little bit of negotiation, if a couple of you might agree not to step 28 up, I mean we saw that you’re here, we’d be willing to give you some additional time. How 29 many folks would you all want to be representatives to speak? 30 MR. TAYLOR: Dave, seven minutes, Andrew about ten minutes, Lauren about three or 31 four minutes. The rest are prepared to stand and say “I agree.” 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, that’s reasonable, let’s do that. So, you said seven. 33 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, one more point of privilege I guess, for the notes that I’m going to 34 review, I have ten copies, I don’t know if you need those or want those or what have you. 21 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You can pass them off to staff there. One thing I would just ask 2 you all is that, like we’ve asked the applicant, is to be able to stay focused on really, I mean if it’s 3 stuff about the merits of a development proposal for the project, it’s not really relevant or 4 germane. So, I would like to caution you to be able to kind of narrow and focus your comments 5 to be germane to the request for a modification to that standard. 6 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And I want to make sure that the applicant has this as well. Have 8 you seen it yet? Okay, I want to make sure that the applicant gets this because the applicant will 9 have the opportunity to respond to what he hears here and I’m going to give him this as well. 10 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, ready? Alright, on behalf of the neighbors, I’ll spend the next few 11 minutes talking through the specific criteria required for a modification, so I am going to try to 12 stay very close to the subject, and why we believe the applicant has failed to comply. There’s 13 four alternate justifications for approving a modification and there’s also a mandatory fifth 14 criteria with which all requests must comply. The applicant did not use criteria one, three, or 15 four, but I will start by going through a couple of those very, very briefly. Criteria one asks, 16 does the plan with the modification, promote the purpose of the standard equally well or better 17 than a plan without the modification. You’ve heard a lot about 3.4.7 today for the last four or 18 five hours. It articulates the importance of preserving historic sites “to the maximum extent 19 possible.” Demolishing 1305 will definitely not promote this, criterion one, therefore we 20 conclude, is not met. Criterion three is about exceptional and unique physical conditions, it 21 doesn’t really apply here. We’ll just kind of gloss over that one. Criteria four asks, this is 22 2.8.2(H)(4). One reason for the handout is all this Code stuff is in there. Criteria four asks, is 23 the divergence from Land Use Code standards nominal and inconsequential, and does the 24 development plan continue to advance purposes of Land Use Code. The applicant doesn’t rely 25 on criteria four, but the demolition of an historical property is not a nominal divergence from a 26 standard that requires its preservation. It’s effectively a complete waiver of that standard. 27 Neither could the demolition be called inconsequential. Several neighbors, including myself, 28 have testified at LPC hearings about the historic significance of the property to us personally. 29 Therefore, we conclude that criteria number four does not apply. 30 The applicant focuses on criteria number two to justify the modification. This has several 31 parts so this will take a little longer. First part, is there no impairment of intent and purpose of 32 Land Use Code. We claim there is impairment, Section 3.4.7 for one, is impaired as we 33 discussed. And, this impairs Section 1.2.2 as well, “ensuring that the development proposals are 34 sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhoods.” The West Central Neighborhood Plan 35 has been quoted by the applicant, but I could quote it ad nauseum here as well. Our 36 neighborhood is characterized therein with existing housing, single-family homes, small versus 37 large structures, mixed-use housing as a component of redevelopment near the Campus West 38 area, not down by us. Distribution of student housing in other appropriate locations throughout 22 1 Fort Collins to help avoid over-concentrations of short-term residents that have tended to 2 destabilize certain West Central neighborhoods. It talks about reuse versus demolition, it talks 3 about existing buildings, it talks about adequate parking. So, there’s lots of stuff in there that 4 speak to 1.2.2. So, we conclude that’s not met as well. 5 And, secondly, does the modification substantially alleviate a defined City need, or result 6 in substantial benefit to the City. The applicant focuses on policies of the City Plan and 7 statement from the West Central Neighborhood Plan in support of the project, and there is some 8 validity to some of that. But, in comparison to the other student housing projects, and the overall 9 need to the City, fifty new units, or one hundred new beds, which is probably I guess maybe 92 10 or 93 actual new beds net, because there are already students living on the property today, would 11 not make a substantial difference, and it would certainly have to make a very substantial 12 difference to justify demolition in the face of all the historical aspects of the request. 13 And, thirdly, does strict application of the standard render the project practically 14 infeasible. We think not. The applicant did not present alternative development plans. He states 15 the structure’s not worth saving, that it’s not historic, that the chosen plan requires demolition, 16 that his contract requires him to purchase the whole property. You know, we live in a City 17 where we’re proud of our historic structures. We encourage the owner to take advantage of 18 incentives to rehabilitate the structure, rearrange buildings, downsize buildings, reduce the 19 number of buildings, put the site to a different use entirely. There’s any number of alternatives 20 and, bear in mind, that the property immediately adjacent to this, was developed just a few years 21 ago, profitably, with a very modest and compatible single family homes, the bungalows that a lot 22 of us live in. So, feasible options do seem to exist. 23 We recall another student housing project that was before the Board called The Grove. 24 That didn’t deal with a historic structure, but that developer had to redesign and change a number 25 of things about the project, at the direction of this Board, in order to come up with a plan that 26 balanced all the competing objectives. And I’ve got to believe that’s possible here as well. 27 Concluding section two, the applicant has not proven, in our opinion, compliance with the 28 mandatory elements here. 29 On to the last criteria, this is the mandatory criteria and it’s very simple, is there no 30 detriment to the public good. We think there would be detriment to the public good here. I will 31 cite Municipal Code 14-2, historic preservation declaration of policy, “It is hereby declared, as a 32 matter of public policy, that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of sites, structures, 33 objects, and districts, of historical, architectural, or geographic significance, located within the 34 City, are a public necessity, and are required, in the interest of prosperity, civic pride, and the 35 general welfare of the people.” So, in the face of all that, we can’t see how the PZB can approve 36 this. I thank you very much for your time and your diligent work on behalf of the City. 23 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. And, I want to make sure that the three of you who 2 are going to speak do sign in. 3 MS. MYRACLE: Alright, so I’m going to be brief as well. I’m Lauren Myracle, I live at 4 1338 Bennett. I’ve spoken before the Landmark Preservation Committee as well and I fully 5 support the positions of all those who are opposed to this project. What I’d like to do, briefly, is 6 address a different facet of this issue. And, thanks for listening. So, I’m a writer, that’s my job, 7 and in my capacity as a writer, I’m surrounded every day by stories and culture and history. 8 And, because of that, I’ve gained an intimate, first-hand knowledge of how important that is to 9 us as people, and not just as attorneys, or developers, or moms and dads and students, or policy- 10 makers, but it’s important to us as humans. What we’re deliberating tonight, it seems to me, is at 11 its most basic level, the importance of history, and it is important. By preserving history, we’re 12 remembering where we came from. History is our cultural DNA; without it, we risk losing track 13 of who we were without it. We risk losing site of who we can become, who we chose as a 14 community to become. And, in my opinion, that is hugely detrimental to the public good. There 15 are many ways of preserving and honoring our history, but a building such as 1305 16 Springfield…a physical entity, a home, plays a special role in that process. Even if, or maybe 17 especially if, that house has morphed, as Mr. Bailey has suggested. 1305 Springfield is a 18 microcosm of time and place. It’s a living, non-static historical record that no photo, or film, or 19 written document can replace. To tear down the house at 1305 Springfield, to make it disappear, 20 would change our town in a significant and irreversible way. So, I ask you please, as you 21 deliberate, think hard about whether you’re comfortable letting that happen. Thanks. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 23 MR. BANTHAM: Thank you, and I believe I’m the final speaker. My name is Andrew 24 Bantham, I’m at 1214 Bennett, just a couple hundred feet from the proposed development. Dave 25 indicated I needed ten minutes, I’m actually going to take fewer than five, so I won’t keep you 26 much longer. I think many of the issues have been covered, and as you heard from Dave Taylor 27 a few minutes ago, the applicant’s request does not meet the necessary criteria for modification 28 and should be rejected tonight on those grounds. However, I also think it’s important to take a 29 step back for a minute and look, philosophically almost, at what the applicant’s asking you to do 30 here tonight. Both the Municipal Code as well as the land use preservation regarding historic 31 preservation are parts of how development works in Fort Collins. And, in many ways, they are 32 the embodiment of a number of very important goals for the City. And, in this situation, rather 33 than attempting to design a development that meets these requirements and complies with the 34 Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7, the applicant has chosen instead to seek a complete waiver, 35 essentially, of these requirements through this modification process. It’s not a small 36 modification, it’s essentially very close to a waiver of the entire Section. This applicant appears 37 to be doing everything he can to subvert the process and get around the requirements of the 38 Code. And, I think in many ways, this is what’s been so frustrating to the neighbors. One of the 39 critiques you often hear about neighbors and neighborhood groups in the development process is 24 1 that they often don’t get involved until the very end. They’ll come before Council or even before 2 P&Z and they don’t take the time to educate themselves about the issues or review the Code, or 3 educate themselves about the process. But, we have the complete opposite situation. We have 4 neighbors who were very involved, who were studying the issues, trying to stay involved in the 5 process. In contrary to that, we’ve got an applicant who appears to be trying to subvert the entire 6 process in requesting waivers, essentially, for entire sections of the Land Use Code. And, the 7 reasons suggested by the applicant in support of that position, are very difficult also for the 8 neighbors to understand. There’ve been references to a site plan several times during the 9 process, in support of the modification, and there’s even been a suggestion that every possible 10 site plan that could keep this house doesn’t work. But, how do we really know that’s true when 11 we don’t even have a development plan. I mean, the requirement is that there be a demonstration 12 of every effort to preserve and maximize to the extent feasible, and we’ve seen no evidence of 13 that in support of this modification request. The second thing we heard about is financial, and 14 we’ve heard this from several folks, and we’ve heard it in prior processes as well. There were 15 repeated references to the fact that the only way this project can work is to bulldoze this 16 potentially historic, and certainly eligible, structure. And, granted, we don’t know the details of 17 this applicant’s deal or what financial promises he’s made to his investors, but I think it’s fair to 18 suggest that the possibility that any development project that is based from the very beginning on 19 the premise, or the request, or the requirement, the City essentially waive entire portions of its 20 Land Use Code, is either not a terribly well thought-out project, or it’s just not appropriate for 21 that particular site. And, finally, I’m just going to wrap up by urging the Board to consider what 22 a bad precedent this would set if this type of modification request was granted. Again, this is a 23 neighborhood, I mean just look at home many neighbors have stuck around on a Thursday night 24 this late. This is a very important issue and people make decisions about where to live, and 25 obviously the Board understands this, but where people live and where they chose to raise their 26 families, are based in part on the character of the neighborhood. And, a huge part of that 27 character is what can or can’t be built around them, and reliance on that. People rely on the 28 values embodied by the Land Use Code, and the processes and the procedures set up. And it’s 29 very disturbing, the suggestion that someone should be allowed to come into town and 30 essentially avoid participating in the process. And, very briefly, the LPC, there was a 31 mechanism to challenge that, not to come in front of P&Z and say, hey, we don’t like what 32 happened, that’s fine, the decision went against you, and it’s fine that the applicant isn’t okay 33 with that, but rather than avail himself the process and set it for a formal meeting, he’s jumped to 34 a different process and tried to essentially reargue the case in front of the Board. And that, 35 finally, is very frustrating to the neighbors, people who’ve taken the time to educate themselves, 36 who have made decisions about their neighborhood, where they’re doing to live and reliance on 37 these codes and processes. And, for those reasons, we think this sort of a waiver, this sort of 38 modification, would set a terrible precedent, and we urge the Board to uphold the determination 39 and the recommendations of staff and to deny this modification request. Thank you. 40 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any more comments? 25 1 MR. BROBST: Neighbors are done? 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I believe so, is that true? Neighborhood is done at three? Okay. 3 MR. BROBST: Good evening Board. My name is Doug Brobst, I live at 1625 4 Independence Road. You may remember that I appeared before you two or three times during 5 the consideration of The Grove. I’m a strong advocate for student housing in Fort Collins. I’m 6 not necessarily going to support every project that comes down the road, but I think we need to 7 look at each of the projects on their merits. I was part of the stakeholders group that came up 8 with the so-called SHAP proposal to City Council. I was…it was interesting to me that the City 9 is rejecting Mr. Bailey’s proposal because it’s not large enough, that we need to have projects 10 such as The Grove, or The Commons, in order to be considered important enough, big enough. 11 We don’t have enough room in the city close to campus for such projects. The other part of it is, 12 as we all know, going through The Grove fiasco, neighbors just strongly object to those kind. 13 Now, The Commons was pretty much went right through because it’s not near any 14 neighborhoods, but we don’t have that situation all the time. The basic problem that we have is 15 that we need student housing. Everybody, I think, in the city will agree on that. But, CSU is 16 either unable or unwilling, and now with the stadium proposal I think it’s more that they’re 17 unwilling, to propose, or to follow through and keep up with student housing in accordance with 18 their increased enrollment that they’re predicting. Now, I’m not saying that I would necessarily 19 support either of the proposals that came before you this evening, but, what was obvious to me 20 was that the City was rejecting them on just grounds that would make them not economically 21 feasible for a developer. And, like I said before, CSU is not willing to come up with student 22 housing, so it’s going to be up to, apparently up to, private developers to fill that void. We’ve 23 got to make sure that the City is making it feasible for developers to follow through with 24 projects. I think keeping the house at 1305, on this site, is going to make this very well-located 25 property undevelopable in the future. I urge you to allow this change that’s being talked about 26 tonight so this project can move forward and be judged on its merits, or lack thereof. Thank you 27 very much. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to step 29 forward and address the Board on this topic? Are you sure? We’re going to close it here in a 30 second and this is the last opportunity to address the Board on this issue. Okay, we’ll close the 31 public testimony at this time. We will move into an applicant response. The applicant has the 32 opportunity to tell us what he thinks about what we just heard. 33 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. I’ll try to keep it brief and concise. First, off, the 34 modification of standard is part of the City process. The concept that I’m subverting the City 35 process…it’s absurd, this is part of the process. This is a component of Section 2.8 and that’s 36 exactly what we’re doing, asking you to look at this situation as a modification to 3.4.7(B) and 37 (E). And, the issue that we have in front of us…it’s a bit of a chicken and egg. We don’t own 38 the property, so how do we spend $100,000 and come back, similar to the last hearing you heard, 26 1 and have this conversation. We have to get this out in front and we have to find out if this is a 2 showstopper or not, and, so that’s the entire purpose of tonight’s hearing: to find out if this 3 particular issue, if the City is going to fall on their sword on this particular house at that location. 4 The statement of facts and specific findings for modification of standard that has been submitted, 5 paragraph two says demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and 6 further advances the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code set forth Section 1.2.2, by 7 fostering the safe, efficient, economic use of the land, the City’s transportation infrastructure and 8 other public facilities and services, TOD overlay district, which this is certainly a part of, 9 encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile, and, you know, I 10 could go on and on. It’s these varied components, but, that is the reason that we are seeking this 11 modification. 12 We are in compliance with the Land Use Code…I mean, we haven’t submitted a plan, we 13 all know that, and so, we’re going to get in front of this Board, hopefully, and submit a plan. 14 But, the plan that we’re contemplating adheres to the Land Use Code and, as you heard earlier, 15 there are floor area restrictions in terms of the total amount of floor area and that property has to 16 be developed on the front half in the NCB zoning, we heard all of that earlier tonight. That’s 17 what we plan to do, we are adhering to that code by pushing these buildings to the front half of 18 the property so Springfield Drive becomes the new front of this property. So, we can’t build in 19 the back half of this property. And, we are building smaller buildings to conform to the West 20 Central Neighborhood Plan. So, you could say, well, gee, just build around it. Well, that 21 becomes a single building back here? That’s not something that you’re going to want to see and 22 approve next to a single-family neighborhood, and not something that I want to take to the 23 market. So, that is why the greatest extent possible, we’re…the Land Use Code is dictating this 24 plan. Setbacks, parking in the rear, all of these are components of the NCB zoning district. This 25 project would comply completely with all zoning requirements in a transit-oriented district. 26 And, there are no minimum parking requirements, as you might know. But, we’ve contemplated 27 fifty-two parking spaces. We believe that, as in our Pura Vida community has over seventy 28 interior bike racks, so we’re going to create a situation here where we think we can build a 29 community that doesn’t center around automobiles. And, to go back to an item of record, the 30 Historitecture report item forty-four, it says, it checks the box, that this project, this particular 31 house, 1305, is not eligible for the national standards. It checked the box, that means it’s not 32 eligible for the state standards. So, that means that the City of Fort Collins has got a different 33 standard than the State of Colorado and the national Secretary of Interior standards. I don’t 34 know why. The architecture lacks integrity, and for that reason, you know, we argue that it 35 doesn’t comply. 36 And, finally, the definition of substantial, again, is important. Is this project important to 37 the city? To my knowledge, there’s only been one property designated over the objection of a 38 land owner, and that was the post office at South College and Oak. Is that the path that we’re 39 taking here? You’ve heard from Bev Carlson, she…this is very, very damaging to someone who 27 1 grew up in Fort Collins, who lived here all her life, moved away and is retired now, but, she’s 2 not in favor of this being designated as a historical landmark. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: As the applicant, do you, or any other member of your team, have 4 more comments? You’re welcome to continue, really in response to the public testimony. 5 MR. OLDHAM: My name is Mike Oldham, I live at 16131 West Ellsworth Avenue in 6 Golden, Colorado. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Again, you’re part of the applicant’s team? 8 MR. OLDHAM: I’m part of the applicant’s team. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you. 10 MR. OLDHAM: I’m not a developer, so a lot of this is foreign to me, I don’t really 11 understand all the legalities, but I want to set the record straight on a couple of things. First of 12 all, there’s been some talk about there was no effort made to try to incorporate this house into the 13 plan. That’s just not true. We hired, not we, Chuck, hired Oz Architecture to do a land plan and 14 they looked extensively at how to leave the house there and build around it, and it just turned out 15 not to be feasible unless you build some kind of a tower or much larger structure. So, if we were 16 going to comply with, what my understanding was what the land plan called for, smaller 17 buildings in the context of the neighborhood, it just didn’t make sense. And I sat through the 18 meeting personally and listened to that, so just so that you understand there was a lot of effort put 19 into trying to figure that out. My interest in this is strictly as a small-time, local guy investor, 20 and I made a small investment in the Pura Vida place because it’s a great opportunity, it’s a great 21 thing for the community. I think if anybody sees what Chuck and the team’s done over there, 22 they’ll agree that they’ve done a great job. And, I think this project can be the same. For me, 23 it’s just an opportunity to be part of something in the community, and I think it would be short- 24 sighted not to make this change and move forward with the project. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Bailey, do you have any other folks that you 26 want from your team? Okay, thank you. At this point, we’d also like to hear from staff to be 27 able to comment on the public testimony that we heard, and also the applicant’s response to that 28 public testimony. 29 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of the proposed other plans that would comply with the 30 standard that would preserve the structures, those were never submitted to staff, nor did staff 31 ever see the plans that we drawn up by Oz Architecture, incorporating the individually eligible 32 structure into a project development plan, we never saw those. So, I just wanted to make sure 33 that was on the record, that we did not look at those plans. And, I have no further input. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Paul, are you going to say something? 28 1 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think that, whether it complied or not isn’t what’s before us, 2 again. We’re here to decide whether a modification should be granted, not whether the plan, if 3 there were a plan, complies with the standard. So, Ms. Levingston has given you, I think, a good 4 analysis of the way the staff feels about the question before you and I think Mr. Bailey has given 5 you a good analysis of the way he feels in this document called “Carriage House Apartments, 6 Specific Findings for Modification of Standards.” As you know, you have to decide if it’s 7 detrimental to the public good as kind of an opening decision. Then, you have to decide if this 8 plan alleviates an existing defined problem or addresses and benefits an important community 9 need, and, in doing so, does not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. So, Mr. 10 Bailey has, at least in his presentation, on the first page, dealt a lot with whether the plan is 11 detrimental to the public good, and is essentially saying, well, it’s not very…it doesn’t have 12 much integrity, and so it’s…and there’s other arguments there as you can read as well that 13 would, in his mind, think it’s not detrimental to the public good to demolish it. The paragraph 14 two deals with the impairing the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code and paragraph three 15 deals with the important community need. And, really, that’s the question before you. It’s just 16 as before, if you think it’s detrimental to the public good as all those four motions were the last 17 time, or five, you can stop there. And, if not, you can go on to decide if you think that this 18 student housing project is an important enough community need to trump this historic 19 preservation criteria that the modification is being requested for. 20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Paul. 21 MS. SCHMIDT: So, Paul, is it correct, because…what he’s asking the modification for 22 is…he’s saying that the requirement that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all 23 possible efforts to comply…have been undertaken. He’s saying that has not happened and that’s 24 what they’re asking the modification for. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, I think Paul, for a moment, is that, in the staff report, 26 which we’ve had a chance to read for nearly two weeks, that on page eight, at the top, that sums 27 up the argument, is that…I think this kind of gets to what our purview is, is that we’re taking it 28 as being that it is an eligible property and that, regardless of that, that he’s asking for the 29 modification of a standard, that it’s not detrimental to the public good, and that the proposed 30 project substantially benefits the City by reason of the fact that it substantially address important 31 community needs that are specifically and expressly defined, described policy considerations in 32 the TOD overlay zone, City Plan, and the West Central Neighborhood Plan; all is directly 33 applicable to the project site. And, I think that’s the core of this issue, is just, besides all the stuff 34 about whether or not the property is…am I right? Okay, I saw one shaking head. But, I mean, 35 we’re not discussing whether or not the property is eligible or not, it’s just that, if it is, is it okay 36 to demolish it because it’s not detrimental to the public good and the project would substantially 37 benefit the city. 29 1 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, and we’re presuming that we’re just making it because there is no 2 alternative and all possible efforts have been taken. He’s saying it’s not possible, and that to 3 design a plan incorporating the house, and therefore they’re asking for the modification, right? 4 And then, if we agree with the modification, then we agree with it based on these criteria? 5 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think that the compliance, feasibility, and all that…you don’t 6 have a plan to look at, so you have no idea whether they’ve taken all feasible efforts to comply 7 with the…we’re not measuring compliance with the standard. And, please, feel free to help out, 8 but I think that the request is, and I don’t want to put words in the applicant’s mouth. I think that 9 the request is, from what I’ve seen in this document, that it’s not detrimental to the public good, 10 student housing trumps historic preservation, and it doesn’t impair the intent and purpose of the 11 Land Use Code. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: It accomplishes goals that are stated…that’s the argument, and 13 then, I mean, along those lines is that it, I think, we…to be able to consider whether or not it’s 14 feasible, we’d have to at least see a plan. We don’t even know, necessarily, how many units 15 there are, so for us to be able to be consider feasibility is a moot point. Jennifer? 16 MS. CARPENTER: Which is my concern. I think we all agree that we need student 17 housing, but I think what we’re being asked to do here tonight, and twice, is to say that student 18 housing is more important than historic preservation. So, then what we’re saying is, that we 19 can’t get student housing and keep our historic properties. I don’t believe that’s true. I also 20 think that through this whole…through our whole Code, and you look at 3.4.7, everything ties 21 back to a proposed development, to a proposed plan. And, we’re making a precedent here of 22 separating this completely from a development plan, so that we don’t really have any way to 23 know. We’re being asked to take down this historic structure with what looks like, you know, 24 kind of a nice plan, but we don’t have any plan. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I think, Jennifer, I agree with you to a certain degree, that, in this 26 case, it is about, you know, historic preservation. But, I think it really is about substantial. I 27 think that’s the qualifier in the statement is, is that if we agree, we can grant the request to 28 modify the standard if, obviously, we got around the idea about detrimental to the public good, 29 but then we’d also have to make the finding that it’s substantially addressing a community need. 30 And, you know, maybe if it was eliminating a community problem that we identified, I mean I’m 31 just speaking hypothetically, but let’s just say it’s a real bad problem, it’s a drought, whatever, 32 not even housing, and this would eliminate drought. Then, yeah, the loss of an eligible home 33 would be worth it, if we made that finding. So, I mean, I think that there are times when, you 34 know, that’s why the word substantially, I think, is in there, is it’s important for us to be able to 35 say that it is not only not detrimental to the public good, but it substantially addresses those 36 community needs, and that’s where… 30 1 MS. CARPENTER: So, you’re saying is go to meet both of those? It’s not detrimental 2 and it’s substantial. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: It does have to, it’s my understanding that… 4 MR. ECKMAN: It does, and Courtney has addressed that on page nine, and she and I 5 talked about the Webster’s definition before she drafted this. And, there are various meanings 6 for the term “substantial” in the big dictionary. The one that seemed most appropriate was 7 “considerable in amount, value, or worth.” Other ones say “having substance,” more general 8 definitions. But, that one seemed to be the one that would apply the best in this situation. But, 9 you know, you’ve had testimony about the number of units and it’s for you to decide if that’s 10 considerable in amount, and, so, I can’t wait to find out what you think. 11 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, I think that’s where substantial…I’m sorry, I don’t want 12 to dominate the conversation, but substantial, I think, is going to be something that has, you 13 know, a big impact, as determined by a reasonable person, and that would be, you know, it has to 14 be compared against other relative developments, you know, or other projects, at least in my 15 mind. Not the only criteria, but substantial, and we’re talking about, we have to be able to say, is 16 thirty to fifty substantial, and even in the staff report we see that, you know, Choice Center is 17 219, Grove is 218, 240. And I’m not saying that just by measurement of the bedroom units is it 18 going to be substantial, but I think that’s one factor for me, is whether or not substantial is 19 substantial compared to similar projects. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, and I can see Mr. Bailey’s comment about the, you know, 21 financial incentives that that might create and that he considers that a substantial asset to the 22 City. And, I guess my problem is though, I think some of those could still be gained by someone 23 else who might come in a do a project that preserves the house. Could be even something else. 24 As far as the financial incentives, I would say, too, that this amount of housing may not be 25 considered substantial by a lot of people. I mean, Doug comes to our meetings all the time 26 slamming CSU for not keeping up with their housing needs and yet they’re probably putting 200 27 beds a year on-line themselves with adding floors to the residence halls and changing some of 28 their…so they are trying to meet the needs and, if like 200 beds a year isn’t considered 29 substantial, then these probably aren’t either. So, you know, I don’t know, I mean, I think people 30 are making an effort to not to say that it isn’t important and I’d like to see a project. I think there 31 would be a good project here, but I think possibly that, you know, something could be designed 32 that would keep the house. Whether that even ended up being a manager’s residence, or the 33 rental office, or something, so that it’s possible to somehow create a win-win situation where you 34 would get a certain element of student housing and some benefit and yet still be able to keep the 35 residence. 36 Now, I’m not sure, I didn’t mean to ask Karen, are there any specific guidelines, where 37 there has to be like so much distance set away from a house, or your can’t have driving by it, or 31 1 something like that, or anything that would really impair a project from happening of any kind of 2 scope here. 3 MS. MCWILLIAMS: No, we work with each developer individually, look at their 4 program and that particular property, and the house could be connected to a unit, it could be, as 5 you say, repurposed for use as a caretaker or the property manager, or turned into the mailbox 6 center and the community center for that little area…and the students could go and shoot pool 7 there or whatever they happen to do. And, again, we just look at each property and work with 8 the developers. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’d like to keep this to…I want us to move along a little bit here, if 10 we can, get to a vote. Gino, Kristin, Butch, any comments? 11 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll make a couple, I don’t know why you want me to keep 12 commenting tonight. Just an observation that I had tonight was, there seem to be some new 13 information that the applicant came up with, with regards to the home, that maybe this isn’t the 14 right venue to present it in. Maybe you could bring that new evidence back to the LPC and show 15 it to them, I don’t know, maybe not. But, it’s just very difficult for us to sit here and try to assess 16 that when they’re the experts…they have a tough job in trying to determine what the history of a 17 home or a project is, a building is, and for us to sit here and second guess it, at this point, is too 18 difficult for me to do. And, based on what I’m seeing, I just can’t justify demoing that house 19 tonight. I think there’s some alternative designs that can be taken into consideration, and, I know 20 we’re not looking at the design, but we kind of have to look at it to justify it, and so, I won’t be 21 supporting the motion to modify the standard tonight. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do you want to make a motion? Brigitte, you want to make a 23 motion? You’ve got a good track record. 24 MS. SCHMIDT: Paul, here they have (B) and (E) together, so is it okay to do it together 25 or do you want them separate again? The modification… 26 MR. ECKMAN: Was it combined as a single request? 27 MS. SCHMIDT: In the findings and fact of the… 28 MR. ECKMAN: I’m hearing from the applicant it’s two requests. 29 MS. SCHMIDT: It’s two requests so… 30 MR. ECKMAN: Let’s have two motions. 31 MS. SCHMIDT: So, the first would be, I move the Planning and Zoning Board deny the 32 granting of modification of Section 3.4.6(B), based on the fact that it’s detrimental to the public 33 good. 32 1 MS. LEVINGSTON: Brigitte, that’s seven, 3.4.7(B) 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, it’s six in the staff report so I’ll change it to seven, okay. 3 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll second that. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a first and a second. Any more discussion? Roll call 5 please. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 7 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 9 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 11 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 13 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 15 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: I make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the 19 modification to Section 3.4.7(E), based on the fact that it’s detrimental to the public good. 20 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll second that as well. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Motion’s been seconded. Further discussion or comments by the 22 Board? Roll call please. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 24 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 26 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 33 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 2 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 6 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, that resolves the Carriage House Apartments 9 modification of standard request. Requests have been denied. 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny Two Stand-Alone Modifications at 1305 South Shields Street 2 1305 South Shields Street East Elevation Southeast Elevation Northeast Elevation 2 3 Vicinity Map Bennett Rd. Springfield Dr. S. Shields St. 1305 1319 4 Proposed Plan and Existing Buildings 3 5 Process for Determinations of Eligibility • 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 • 1305 S. Shields reviewed on 3 occasions • Each time, it was determined to be eligible for individual local landmark designation 6 Process for Approving Demolition •1st step: Determination of Eligibility •2nd step: LPC Preliminary Hearing, Nov. 9, 2011 – Appellant did not provide or discuss any alternatives – No solution found •3rd step: P &Z Board Approves Plans for Redevelopment •4th step: LPC Final Hearing 4 7 Requirements for Plan Approval • All applicable Sections of Land Use Code must be met for P&Z Approval • Proposed project does not meet two Sections of the LUC: – Preservation to the maximum extent feasible of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation (Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (B), General Standard) – Demolition of a building deemed individually eligible for local landmark (Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7(E) Relocation or Demolition) • Maximum extent feasible: no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation have been undertaken 8 How Appellant Could Meet LUC Standards • Appellant could show that his plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building into the proposal; or • Appellant could provide evidence that he 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 or minimize adverse impacts have been undertaken 5 9 Modification of LUC Standards • Modification of LUC Standards allowed under LUC Section 2.8.1 • “Stand-Alone” – No development plans submitted • Modification may be granted only if Decision Maker finds: – 1) the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and – 2) that at least one of four listed criteria has been met (LUC 2.8.2(H)) 10 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing February 16, 2012 • Applicant/Appellant asserted: – Modification not detrimental to public good, and – Project would substantially address important community need 6 11 Planning and Zoning Board Action • 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 (6-0) • 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 (6-0) • Appeal of these denials filed March 1, 2012 12 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 7 13 11sstt Assertion • Appellant asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading – Board deferred to staff opinion and Information on which the determination of eligibility was based is incorrect, and 1305 South Shields Street is not individually eligible 14 Information Citied by Appellant • Rogue Architecture Report • Gebau Structural Review • Oz Architecture, Landmark Designation Opinion • HistoryMatters, LLC, State of Colorado Architectural Inventory Form P&Z Board discussion around information cited by Appellant (transcript, pg. 15) 8 15 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 16 P & Z Board Discussion • Discussion regarding value of student housing and historic resources (transcript, pg. 29) • Board discussed the possibility of a student housing project that keeps the existing home (transcript, pg. 30) 9 17 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. 18 Summary • The house at 1305 South Shields 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, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code 10 19 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 (transcript, pg.31) • 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 (transcript, pg.32) 20 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 Summary – Carriage House Apartments Appeal. The site visit of 1305 South Shields Street commenced around 3:00 p.m. on March 26, 2012. In attendance from City Council were Mayor Weikunat, Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Horak. City Staff included Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, Courtney Levingston, and Seth Lorson, City Planners and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner. The Appellant, Charles Bailey, as well as attorney Jeffrey Johnson were present, as well as an architect from Rouge Architecture. Additionally, approximately 5-6 affected property owners from the neighborhood attended. The site visited started on the north side of the property along Springfield Drive. A general overview of the site was given by Levingston. As proposed, 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street will be demolished and replaced with 5 multi-family buildings with a total of 30 – 50 units. The Appellant stated that the interior of the property was available for the Mayor and Councilmemebers to tour. It was noted by City Attorney Daggett that the Planning and Zoning Board did not review the interior of the property during its hearing. The Mayor, Councilmembers, Appellant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to view the residence at 1305 South Shields Street from the east, along South Shields Street. In response to a question by Councilmember Horak requesting clarification regarding which buildings were determined to be individually eligible, McWilliams said that the residence at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be eligible on three separate occasions and that the outbuildings associated with 1305 South Shields Street and the residence at 1319 South Shields Street and were determined to not be individually eligible. Councilmember Ohlson requested an overview of the historic preservation process regarding a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation. McWilliams explained that Chapter 14 of the municipal code governs this historic preservation process. McWilliams noted that as a part of the City's permitting processes, whenever a permit or development application is sought for a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the application is reviewed under Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review. The review begins with a determination of a property's eligibility for possible designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission make this determination of eligibility. The Mayor, Councilmembers, Applicant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to the rear of the residence at 1305 South Shields Street (west side of property). Once again, the Appellant requested that the Mayor and Councilmembers tour the inside of the residence. In response to a question from Mr. Horak, McWilliams stated that the interior of the property was not a factor in determining the individual eligibility of the property. There was a question as to if a tour of the interior would be presenting new information, and, after further discussion by Deputy City Attorney Daggett, Councilmember Horak asked to see the interior and the group proceeded inside. It was noted that the structure was currently used as a rental property. Inside the residence, Mayor Weikunat asked if there was an addition. McWilliams responded that there was a main house with additions. After exiting the residence, the tour ended at approximately 3:30 and attendees disbursed. A DVD of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing of February 16, 2012 has been provided to Council. The video of the Hearing may be viewed at: http://www.fcgov.com/cable14/video-archive.php under the “City Programs” tab. Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Public Open Lands River Conservation River Downtown Redevelopment Residential Foothills Low Density Residential Transition Urban Estate