Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STAND. APPEAL - MOD120002 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTApril 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 23 The Planning and Zoning Boards' discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant',provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility forthe residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated February 16, 2012, Remington Annex Stand -Alone Modification of Standard, MOD120002 4. Letter from Dr. Kozial, City Visions, dated February 16, 2012 5. Requested Findings of Fact submitted by Applicant Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 6. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 7. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 8. Applicant PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 9. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council 10. Summary of City Council Site Visit, 705, 711, 715 Remington Street April 12, 2012 (to be provided in the Council Read -Before packet, April 17, 2012) 11. Written materials submitted by Appellant for City Council to consider in deciding the Appeal, submitted prior to 12:00 p.m., the Wednesday immediately preceding the date upon which the hearing is scheduled. April 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 23 maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State Register Historic District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to property 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 orforindividual listing in the State orNational Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure.or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with. LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that: The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that.- (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, "Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts." Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, "the granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18). April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 23 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence . Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. The Appellant states, "The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstratedto be blatantly incorrect..." The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at 711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, "...references to certain City policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property..."; and cite a letter from. Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 711 Remington structure. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests, as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board. The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was made in the Board's discussion of the first of the five modification of standard requests, that to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity, including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15.) In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to "...potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the ... property...." The only reference to the number of potential alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter states, "I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven't been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated." In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants' attorney, Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the Transcripts from the Hearing make it clearthat the Board did not discuss this information or consider it in making its motion. B. Failureto Properly Interpretand Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land UseCode in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, "A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good" and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel School neighborhood context. As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January 11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code's applicability to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for applicability. The Code states: "If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation..., [or] (2) is officially designated as a... state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two "stand-alone" modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code (5-1). QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? DATE: April 17, 2012 l MIL STAFF: Courtney Levingston, Karen McWilliams Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources, General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places and/orthe State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, and constructing one multi -family building with 42 units in their place. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these Modifications of Standard requests. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests in question. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fifty years old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With the exception of the two "intrusion" properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of Remington Street are designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two of these other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the "Demolition/Alteration Review Process." In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711 Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711 Remington Street