Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STAND. APPEAL - MOD120002 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESApril 17, 2012 Councilmember Troxell agreed and stated efforts should be sharpened with respect to what properties should be preserved. McWilliams replied a recent assessment resulted in suggestions for achieving more predictability in the historic preservation process. Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use 1.Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and He Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of$90,000. The City's assistance included both a onetime use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on April3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw, withdrew) appropriates $241" 193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600, 000. " Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 028, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. or ATTEST: - Interim City Clerk 361_ April 17, 2012 continuing to the Landmark Preservation Commission final hearing; at which time, any decision of the Commission is directly appealable to Council. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Councilmember Troxell stated the applicant is using the mechanism at its disposal and he is unsure as to why the applicant cannot get a fair hearing of the issue. Councilmember Horak agreed there are some issues regarding eligibility which need to be addressed within the City organization; however, this hearing is not the appropriate time to deal with that issue. CouncilmemberTroxell expressed concern the current processes regarding eligibility are detrimental to the City. Councilmember Manvel stated the process has been followed and the Board conducted a fair and complete hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B). Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. HaWa3v lei llelarfnol�i "I Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for LarWUse Code Section 3.4.7(E). Mayor Weitkunat noted Council was limited by the appeal process in terms of what issues can be addressed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the schedule to address these process issues moving forward. Deputy City Manager Jones replied a memo will be delivered to Council within a week outlining the problem statements, scope of work, public involvement, and schedule for meeting dates. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson agreed that the historic preservation process needs clarification and stated historic preservation within the community has been too relaxed. 360 April 17, 1012 Ms. Bachelet stated there are twelve intrusion properties surrounding her property on Remington, and only 18 of the 100 dwellings studied on Remington Street are owner -occupied. Opponent Presentation Rick Zier, attorney representing parties -in -interest in opposition to the appeal, discussed the neighborhood and surrounding historical properties. He outlined the opposition arguments supporting the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to deny the modifications of standard, stating the two modifications would be detrimental to the public good as they would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall neighborhood context. Mr. Zier stated a structure's location makes it historic and relocating it would change the authenticity of the Historic District. Marcy Riser, 622 Remington Street, stated relocation would destroy the integrity of the property and negatively impact the Historic District. She requested Council uphold the denials of the Planning and Zoning Board. Appellant -Rebuttal Christian Bachelet, Appellant, stated the properties have been neglected for years and noted they had plans that included the structure which were not feasible projects. Mr. Bachelet expressed concern there is no avenue available to refute eligibility and noted there was no disclosure citing eligibility when they purchased their property. Mr. Johnson stated the property lacks exterior integrity and significance. The proposed project encourages the Land Use Code by renewal. and innovation, encourages patterns of land use development through infill, encourages appropriate development within transit corridors, and fosters a more rational relationship between the commercial properties and. the historic district. Mr. Johnson noted three of the Landmark Preservation Commission members supported relocation of the structure. He stated the applicant has.created six: different building plans and has appeared before the Landmark Preservation Commission twice to attempt to find a solution to the issue. Opponent Rebuttal Mr. Zier stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not rely on false or grossly misleading evidence and did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code and requested the Board's decision be upheld. Council Discussion Councilmember Troxell asked about the alleged changing determinations made by Ms. McWilliams. McWilliams replied the comments attributed to her from the Conceptual Review were summary comments and were corrected at the time the comments were provided to the applicant, six months prior to the purchase of the property. McWilliams read the summary and corrected comments. Councilmember Troxell requested input regarding the ability to refute a determination of eligibility. McWilliams replied the appellants can refute the eligibility determination by providing substantive new information and requesting a new determination or, by working through the process and M&I April 17, 2012 Courtney Levingston, City Planner, discussed the Remington Annex project and the requested modifications of standard. She stated the property at 711 Remington Street, one of the three homes proposed to be demolished as part of this project, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed the City's demolition/alteration review process. She stated this block of Remington Street contains ten other historically designated properties in addition to 711 Remington Street. She stated the appellant asserts the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading and also asserts that the building at 711 Remington is not eligible for local landmark designation. McWilliams noted the Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modification requests as that it is not within the Board's purview. Levingston stated the appellant also asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when it denied the two modification .. requests. The appellant. maintains the two modification requests are not detrimental to the public good and the project would advance the public good because it substantially addresses adopted plans and policies. Levingston stated Council must consider. whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board failed to hold a fair hearing and whether or not the Board failed to property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. Mayor Weitkunat noted several Councilmembers visited the site with staff on April 12. Councilmember Horak stated at the site visit he asked why the property would be eligible for local landmark designation, and was given a brief answer by staff. Appellant Presentation Jeff Johnson, attorney for the appellants, stated. -the -relocation of the structure at 711-Remington — Street is the crux of the appeal. He stated the appellant would like Council to grant the modification to allow the relocation of.the structure with the condition that the site to which the building will be relocated is suitable to the City. Relocation of the structure will allow for investment in the block face to allow for an appropriate transition between the commercial zone district and the NCM zone, and will substantially address needs outlined in City plans and policies. If the relocation is granted, the project is not approved, and Land Use Code Section 3.4:7 will still apply. Robin Bachelet, Appellant, discussed the student housing projects she and her husband have built near CSU and requested Council support relocation of the structure at 711 Remington Street. Ms. Bachelet stated the conceptual review of the project resulted in a comment from Karen McWilliams noting the properties at 705 and 715 Remington are not eligible, and the property at 711 Remington is probably not eligible. She stated the conceptual review comments did not indicate these properties are located in the Laurel Historic District or are part of a national historic district. Ms. Bachelet described the conflicting comments received from staff regarding eligibility and whether or not the Landmark Preservation Commission would be involved. Ms. Bachelet read portions of a letter from Dr. Koziol, an historic preservation expert, opposing the eligibility of the structure at 711 Remington. 358 April 17, 2012 alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. C. The Appellant alleges that th e Planning an it Zoning Boardfailed toproperly interpret an d 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 ofindividual eligibilityfor local landmarkdesignation on February 16, 2012. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. • The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification ofstandard 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(II)(2). SUMMARY The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to•be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 1.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request for modifications (5-1), including the two that are' the subject of this appeal, based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. " Assistant City Attorney Daggett reviewed the appeal procedure and noted this appeal will be heard under the procedure in place prior to the recent appeal procedure changes. She stated Council can opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board's original denials, or remand all or part of the decisions back to the Board for rehearing or further consideration of specific matters. 357 April 17, 2012 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 propertyadjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New -structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion ofthe 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 Is Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution ofthe City Council, and the strict application ofsuch a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, "Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts. " Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, "the granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically' and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18). The Planning and Zoning Boards' discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial ofthe two stand 356 April 17, 2012 reference to the proposed PROD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity, including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15) In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to "...potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the ... property.... " The only reference to the number of potential alternative designs occurs on page 4.7 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter states, "I think the other thing that 1 would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot.of feasible alternatives that haven't been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated. " • In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants ' attorney, Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information or consider it in making its motion. B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, "A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good " and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would.be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and maintaining the character of the existing -Laurel School National and State Register Historic.District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic'Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum 355 April 17, 2012 QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 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 ONAPPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. - i • T-,- } The Appellant states, "The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect... " The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at 711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, "..-.references to certain City policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands ofpossible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property... "; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the - Board relied on the product df this false information'in accepting -the eligibility determination for the 711 Remington structure. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests, as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was made in the Board's discussion of the first of the five modification ofstandard requests, that to Standard 4.9(D)(I) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did'state in 354 April 17, 2012 an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code's applicability to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for applicability. The Code states: "If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation..., for] (2) is officially designated as a ... state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) 'is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic -property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site or (b) is located on property. adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. " As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two "stand-alone " modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all f ve Modifications of Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: 1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request io Section 3.4. 7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code (5-1). 353 April 17, 2012 Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, and constructing one multi family building with 42 units in their place. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered feve stand-alone Modification of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these Modifications of Standard requests. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests in question. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fiftyyears old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With the exception of the two "intrusion " properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of Remington Streetare designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two ofthese other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. - - The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the "Demolition/Alteration Review Process. " In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711 Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711 Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel School neighborhood context. As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January 11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to 352 April 17, 2012 replied the application fee is a one-time payment and the origination fee can be included in the loan financing. Councilmember Troxell asked about cost estimates for the pilot year. Phelan replied the S300,000 in capital funding is expected to fund approximately 50 to 75 of the typical home efficiency improvement projects. Beckstead noted staff s commitment is to complete this pilot program, and potentially. beyond, without"adding any incremental resources to the program. Councilmember Troxell asked about the objectives and goals of the pilot program. Phelan replied staff would like to see a substantial increase in the number of projects. Mayor.Weitkunat noted Council has received a revised version of the Ordinance. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell,.to adopt Ordinance No. 033, 2012, as revised, on First Reading. Councilmembers Manvel and Troxell thanked Mr. Kirsch and other citizens for keeping this issue at the forefront. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld The following is staffs memorandum for -this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modif cations of Standards requests to the Planning and Zoning Board, however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice ofAppeal. One ofthe two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources, General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the preservation ofstructures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register 351 April 17, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy... Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated the order of the agenda has been changed and. Item #23 Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street will be considered after Items #24 and 25. Citizen Participation Karen Miller, 4407 Hummingbird Drive, suggested Hughes Stadium could be refurbished rather than CSU constructing a new stadium. Judy Rodriguez, 525 East Stuart, asked about the future plans for Hughes Stadium. John Hurst, PO Box 999, discussed Resolution 2006-126 regarding Front Range Village and stated the public should be informed of the PIF via placards at registers. Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at CSU. Chase Eckert, Associated Students of Colorado State University Governmental Affairs Director, discussed the increase in Transfort ridership for CSU students. Carl Patton, 619 Skysail Lane, opposed the proposed• on -campus stadium at CSU and suggested Council read a statement compiled by the SOS Hughes group. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at CSU and questioned the future of Hughes Stadium. 337