HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STAND. APPEAL - MOD120002 - REPORTS - MINUTES/NOTES49
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, I make a motion to deny the modification request for Section
8 3.4.7(E), and that was based on detrimental to the public good.
9 MS. CARPENTER: Second.
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or
11 comments? Roll call please.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
13 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
15 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
17 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
19 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
21 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, moving on. That concludes our discussion and
24 deliberation of the Remington Annex request for modifications of standard. We will take on the
25 nextissue.
PV
27
48
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing, I'm going to state the obvious, is, I think, that as we
2 continue to implement many of the goals and objectives of Plan Fort Collins, our City Plan, is
3 that we're going to have competing objectives around the campus. We have historic homes, we
4 want to build density, we want student housing. And it's all in the same area, and I think that,
5 you know, I value the historic preservation, I think, for all the right reasons, and I think that it
6 has to be, it has to be credible. And, I think a lot of times, that means financial credibility is
7 important for the program in general. And, that doesn't mean anything really when we're talking
8 about a real specific proposal right now, and how this kind of weighs out. One thing I think is
9 important in this process though, is that the work that is done by the historic preservation
10 professionals in the city, and the LPC Board, is, it needs to be respected and it is part of the
11 Municipal Code about how we deal with ... how we as, you know, I guess, enforcers of the Land
12 Use Code, deal with that. There's some nuances there that, I think, need to be probably further
13 explored a little bit in the future. And, in the mean time, I think, you know, personally, I do
14 think that, you know, it would make sense, you know, without knowing everything that I've
15 heard tonight and learned over the past week or so about this proposal and the historical integrity
16 of the District, beyond just the house. You know, I think that it would make sense to move the
17 house but I think that now we've seen it in the context of the District and what it would do as far
18 as authenticity. I probably would vote to deny the request for a modification at this point. That
19 one doesn't feel that good, I'll be honest. You know, it wasn't like they were asking to
20 demolish, you know, one of the houses on Mountain Avenue or anything, you know, the Avery
21 House or anything. But, it is what it is because I think that the rules state what they do, and so,
22 we'll follow them. Any other comments? Do we have a motion?
23 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just going to ask, can we put these two modifications together?
24 make a motion to deny the modification of Section 3.4.7(B) because it is detrimental to the
25 public good.
26 MS. CARPENTER: Second.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a motion that's been seconded. Any further
28 discussion? Roll call please.
29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
30 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
32 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
34 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
47
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Karen, can I ask a question? One thing I didn't, maybe I missed,
2 is, specifically, if the relocation was conditioned upon it being put in, you know, it was relocated
3 within the District so it was still to some... maybe it replaced a house that was noted as an
4 intrusion. How would that affect this whole idea?
5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: That would be very difficult to answer; it would depend on where
6 in the District it was going to be relocated. The very fact that you would take something,
7 okay... entering something into the District that's not there has a negative impact on the District
8 too. So, taking this building from say, Remington Street, and moving it over to Mathews or to
9 the 300 block of Remington, or somewhere else within the District, has, by that nature, an impact
10 on those buildings. So, there is ... right, so it impacts, it has a greater impact than just relocating
11 this building. Wherever you relocate this building, if you're doing it within the Laurel School
12 National Register District, you're still impacting the District in two ways, one from the loss of
13 the building on Remington, and two, from the addition of a building into another area that didn't
14 have that building.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: But, if it's a historic building, would that improve where... whichever
16 part of the District it went into?
17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Natural Register Historic District is about authenticity, it's
18 not ... so, you know, if that place does not have a building right now, then bring one in, plunking
19 it there, has an effect.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
21 MS. MCWILLIAMS: It's not a matter of would it look pretty, it's a matter of
22 authenticity.
23 MS. CARPENTER: I think the other thing that I'd like to point out is that, incumbent on
24 us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has showed that
25 no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to
26 find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven't been
27 looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated. So, that's where I'm coming from.
28 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the other comment I'd like to make is ... I always hear people
29 talk about all the policies in City Plan. You know, the ones that I rarely ever hear of are ... there
30 is a commitment in City Plan to support existing neighborhoods, and always to maintain the
31 integrity of the existing neighborhoods. And, I think that, to me, that especially this being a
32 historical district, would really impact the existing neighborhoods and the people who live there,
33 because there is a certain amount of predictability for them. And, I think when you move it to a
34 historical district and you start investing money to fix up your house and everything, then you
35 have a certain expectation, and if other people can come and just sort of chip away at your
36 efforts, that is very detrimental to those people who've made efforts on their places, I think.
46
1 eligible, locally eligible. It's in the middle of a Historic District. We have historic fabric all
2 around it, and I cannot support it. I think it is detrimental to the public good, and it is not
3 something I can support.
4 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would agree. I would perhaps be more willing to consider
5 relocation of the home itself if it wasn't within a Historic District. To me, that's the really
6 important piece, of sort of layering all of those elements.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead Butch, we know you're waiting.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Oh, gosh, this reminds me of the little house that's between the food
9 locker and the church. Nice little house, maybe not the best location for it to be in. 1 think that
10 house could shine somewhere else. Where it is, I think it's destined to mediocrity. Just because
11 of its two neighbors on either side.
12 MS. CARPENTER: Those two neighbors could be turned into nice houses, where it's
13 shown again, without the moving of this out of the Historic District.
14 MR. STOCKOVER: And I would agree with that somewhat, I'm just more flexible by
15 nature, and I think ... I think, if it were me, I'd say let them move it.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: I would agree with Jennifer's last comment, I mean, I think that two
17 houses, definitely the two houses on either side of this one, I think, are the eyesores in the
18 neighborhood. And, but, I think it's been shown on north, you know, on Laurel Street, north of
19 the campus, and I realize some people obviously don't like those newer places, but I think there
20 are some that have been done that kind, of fit in to the neighborhood scale -wise and everything.
21 And so it's very possible that you could do something on those two other individual lots that
22 could still add to the District, even though it would be a newer ... I mean, not technically maybe
23 add, but make it an attractive area that would still be student housing. I think there are other
24 options that could make an improvement here that would be beneficial to the public good.
25 MR. CAMPANA: This is by far one of the hardest decisions on here is this demolition or
26 relocation. And, I got to be honest with ... I hate driving down Laurel today and seeing all the
27 homes that are getting demolished or ... I don't think many of them are being relocated, but, the
28 texture and the feel of Laurel Street has completely changed. And, with this being in a Historic
29 District, you know, I don't think it's the right idea to go in there and start removing homes and
30 demolishing it ... I think I agree with Butch that, perhaps if the house was put on another lot and it
31 could be rehabbed, you know, maybe it's not such a huge loss to the house itself, but then I want
32 to look at the context of the neighborhood and I think, what does it do to the neighborhood with
33 that in there. As much as I want to support some of the other City policies we have and get some
34 housing near CSU and deal with some of the parking issues, it just seems like the wrong street to
35 do it on, so I'm going to have a hard time supporting it.
45
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, you know Gino, that's wise. I think I stand a little bit
2 corrected. That's a good thing, I think, about our Board, is that when we deliberate, I don't think
3 is necessarily... let's fight it out. And, I'm glad that I heard what you said. I think the applicant
4 heard what I said about the design and, if we see something back around that at least, yeah, one
5 person, that's okay I think... with some architectural creativity. But, I'm going to vote to deny it.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: So, you want me to make another motion.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: If you make a motion that ... yeah, yeah.
8 MS. SCHMIDT: I hate being the evil person. Okay, I'll make a motion that the Planning
9 and Zoning Board deny the modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), concerning the setback,
10 because it's detrimental to the public good.
11 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a second, any further discussion? Roll call please.
13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
14 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
16 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
18 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
20 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Now we'll move to the easy requests, the fourth and the
25 fifth, request to modify the standards, Sections 3.4.7(B) and (E). Does anybody need any more
26 discussion or any staff reporting on what these are that we're discussing, or would you like to go
27 ahead and begin making comments and deliberating?
28 MS. CARPENTER: I'll start on this one, then. This one to me, I cannot support, really
29 cannot support a modification on this. We have a structure that has been declared individually
pi
44
1 show how this modification is ... the request for the modification, is nominal and inconsequential
2 through the averaging. I think he was able to hit that. And so, I would support this request for a
3 modification to the standard as ... if this process follows in a subsequent development proposal,
4 you know, if it's ... I think it is, to me, I'm not convinced that the diversion from that setback
5 standard is detrimental to the public good and I do believe that allowing it is nominal and
6 inconsequential. I've been convinced of that, I think, through very, very thoughtful design that is
7 sensitive to the architecture in the neighborhood. Obviously if something comes in ... this doesn't
8 mean yes to a development proposal, things can change. And, a lot of times, it is the whole
9 proposal that we'll be looking at in consideration. But, as I see it here, notwithstanding the other
10 requests for modifications that have been made or denied, this one I would be willing to support.
11 MR. CAMPANA: The issue is that the modification stands for a year. Any project
12 brought forward could just go, vertically, straight up from the setback, and not have to comply to
13 this portion of the Code at all. That's my hang up is...
14 MS. CARPENTER: That's my hang up too. I can't do that.
15 MR. CAMPANA: I hate to give that up and just give free willy to that right now. I mean,
16 it would be one thing if we're looking at this design and looking at this modification. I don't
17 have an issue with ... this one I could support, but it's very open-ended.
18 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the only thing I can say, because I think in a way it's a moot
19 point, I mean, you really aren't getting anything, even if we approve it. And, I would think, I
20 think, you've heard the Board's feedback that we like this plan and it's generally... in the future,
21 it would be the direction to go as far as designing something with the articulation, but, for the
22 conscience of the Board and our consistency, maybe let's just vote to deny it because then we
23 know exactly where we are with it. And, that's my feeling on it, and I think you've got the
24 feedback and you understand, sort of, where we are because of everything else. That it's
25 not ... it's not that we don't like the particular plan that's presented. Is that fair?
26 MR. CAMPANA: Does a denial tonight on this specific section of the Land Use Code
27 then hold for one year as well so the applicant can't come forth for a year and ask for a
28 modification of that standard, on that property for a year?
29 MR. ECKMAN: I don't think so, then they could ask for the modification in connection
30 with a PDP plan.
31 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, so if it's approved, it's good for a year. But, if it's denied, they
32 can come back next month and ask for it again.
33 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, and they might come back with a plan itself and ask for the
34 modification at that point if the plan doesn't quite comply.
35 MR. CAMPANA: Okay.
43
1 average setbacks exceed the standard, as this drawing does, instead of trying to tie it to this exact
2 drawing.
3 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know that you have any assurance that that drawing is what's
4 going to manifest in the end anyway.
5 MR. CAMPANA: Well, that's what I'm saying, yeah.
6 MR. ECKMAN: And, if you're thinking, and I don't know ... I'm not sure it registered to
7 me, that the drawings that you saw meant compliance with the standard, because there were
8 setbacks, or exactly what. But I think that the request before you is that this is a different kind of
9 project that meets an important community need, or alleviates a problem, and, because of that, it
10 merits the modification to this setback of this dimensional standard, as long as you can also find
11 that it doesn't impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and it's not detrimental to the
12 public good. But, it seems like... it all hinges on the important community need issue, I think,
13 because that's the foundation upon which this is requested, isn't it?
14 MS. LEVINGSTON: No, it was not. It was ... the modification was to Section
15 2.8.2(H)(4), which is nominal and inconsequential.
16 MR. ECKMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Nominal and inconsequential.
17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes.
18 MR. ECKMAN: In the context of the neighborhood.
19 MS. CARPENTER: But, if we did approve that, we're not really approving the way
20 this ... they could come back with a completely different plan that ... I just am having a hard time
21 saying that this one works. I understand what you're saying, Gino. I think this looks pretty
22 good. But, if we approve that, this means nothing. They could just change it.
23 MR. CAMPANA: I agree, so, I mean, our choices tonight are to either approve it, deny it,
24 or continue it. I mean, I would feel a lot better about continuing until you have an actual
25 elevation that we're looking at, and design, but...
26 MS. SCHMIDT: Can we continue an individual modification then? Is that an option?
27 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think they're entitled to a vote.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I do too.
29 MR. CAMPANA: Yea, I was throwing it out there more, in case one of you guys wanted
30 to step up there and consider doing that.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'd like to continue ... to get to a vote on it if we can. One thing
32 I'm going to say is that, on this request, I think, the architect did a very good job of being able to
42
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Motion carries, the second request for modification to the floor
8 area ratio is denied. We'll move to the third modification to a standard that's been requested.
9 That is Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), Dimensional Standards. If anybody needs to take a moment to
10 refresh their memories, it's up on the screen now. Any questions from the Board about this
11 request, or the standard itself?
12 MR. CAMPANA: Again, the issue with this is trying to separate the modification from
13 the actual design, because the design, as we see it in our packet, I think does a great job
14 articulating the building, which is really what we're trying to accomplish. And, I believe there
15 was a comment in there that your average exceeds the standard anyway. So, I think you've done
16 a very good job as architects and developers in meeting the intent of that Code. The difficulty is,
17 to approve a modification without having the final plan, and be able to connect the two. That's
18 where I'm having difficulty here tonight.
19 MS. SCHMIDT: Because, in a way, since we denied the other two modifications, then
20 technically, this plan that we have here could not really be built, right?
21 MS. LEVINGSTON: That's correct.
22 MS. SCHMIDT: So, that's kind of like what Gino said ... how could we approve this
23 modification to something that doesn't...
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, but I think we still need to be able to take them in isolation
25 without consideration of the other requests, whether they're approved or denied. And, if nothing
26 else, give the applicant the feedback on this specific request so they can go forward.
27 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, so could we say we're talking about this specific drawing that we
28 see here? Because I think, too, that that was well done, with some detail and everything in it.
29 Could probably have more, but...
30 MR. CAMPANA: Well, we could, but maybe we could condition it with, you know,
31 something along the lines of, the average exceeds the standard. I could live with that. The
41
1 MS. SCHMIDT: I agree exactly with what you're saying, Andy, except again, I feel like
2 seven times the allowable ... I mean, it's just such a big change that, to me, that's not a
3 modification. If you wanted to increase it by, you know, so that two-thirds of the yard instead of
4 50%, I mean those... it's just too large a modification.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch, Gino, Kristin, what are your thoughts on this?
6 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would be inclined to agree with you, Andy. I think that, given
7 the fact that it's in a buffer zone, and that it backs to an alley, to me, it makes sense. And also,
8 the unique character of the neighborhood, it makes sense to do a lot of that backfill on the back
9 portion of the site so that you can remain ... have that character for the pedestrian level scale, and
10 the character that abuts the residential community. I think especially since that north lot, most of
11 that rear, you know, that significant bulk is abutting a parking lot, I think that is something to
12 consider. But, that parking lot might not always stay a parking lot, and there are impacts to the
13 property on the south side and we haven't heard very much from the residents or the owner of
14 that property. But, I think there are impacts there that are worth considering as well.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gino? Butch?
16 MR. STOCKOVER: I really don't have anything to add, I think it's all been said.
17 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I do think, fundamentally though, that seven times the excess is
18 significant.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, does anybody have any other comments, or do you want
20 to make a motion?
21 MS. SCHMIDT: I'll make the motion. Since I'm making it, I'll make it from my
22 viewpoint I guess. I'll make a motion to deny the modification of Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow
23 substantial divergence from the 0.33 rear FAR, because it's detrimental to the public good.
24 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second.
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further discussion? Roll call please.
26 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
27 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
28 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
29 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
30 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
31 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
40
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, the request for the first modification of standard regarding
4 density was denied. Let's move to the second modification request, which is the floor are ratio
5 section 4.9(D)(5). Staff will put that up for us to be able to look at. Any questions from the
6 Board about this request or the standard? Okay, well, we can deliberate any comments then.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess I'd just like to point out that the one gentleman was
8 correct as far as that it's actually seven times the amount, that they're asking for ... a difference in
9 the rear lot. Because they would be allowed the 3,283 square feet and they want 22,712. Is that
10 correct, those numbers?
11 MS. LEVISNGSTON: They are allowed 3,283 square feet in the rear 50% of the lot, and
12 they are proposing 22,712 square feet.
13 MS. SCHMIDT: That 3,000 total, is that all three lots combined or would that be for each
14 lot?
15 MS. LEVINGSTON: That's for all three lots combined.
16 MR. CAMPANA: The 22,712 includes their parking though, right?
17 MS. LEVINGSTON: The at -grade parking, yes.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me just throw out a comment. You know, as I read the intent
19 of the standard, I think it has more to do with keeping the buildings up front than it does creating
20 a backyard. And, so, you know, I think, largely ... I think I'm supportive of this request for
21 modification because I do believe that, especially with the character of the neighborhood in that
22 district, that it is, you know, far more important... once they've accomplished having the building
23 forward, that they've been able to demonstrate, I think, that it doesn't... it's not detrimental to the
24 public good. And, I do believe that they've been able to hit the intent of it by keeping the
25 buildings up in the front. I just don't think we want to get lost in the idea that it's about creating
26 a backyard.
27 MS. CARPENTER: I think that part of the intent of this standard was to keep backyards
28 backyards. And, by building into the back part of the yard, you impact the yards on either side of
29 you. And that, I think, is what most of the people, when we were working on the Eastside
30 Westside changes that we're going back into, another reset of that, that was a lot of the problem
31 with it. It's not just getting things to the front, but also protecting people's backyards. So, for
32 me, again, this one... especially in light of, that we're getting ready to go through a reset, that
33 we're going to be re -looking at all of this, I'm having a hard time supporting this standard as
34 well, or this modification.
M
1 we drive down College. So, I'm, you know, making my statements on this modification of
2 density only. So, I feel I could be in favor of it.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess ... do you want me to go ahead and make a motion?
4 MR. STOCKOVER: Just one more thing, college students bring their cars and they go to
5 school during the week, and if they don't drive their car for six days of the week, it's sitting in
6 front of somebody's house for six days of the week, and then they take it skiing on Sunday. So,
7 just encourage them not to drive, doesn't mean they don't bring their car and impact the
8 neighborhood, and that's why parking off-street is so important.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, and I guess I'll put in a plug if we're going to get on this topic,
10 because, since you mentioned the PDOD, what I'm hoping with something with PDOD is
11 someone will come in with something creative, like, yeah, we're not going to have any parking,
12 we're going to belong to Zip Car, and we'll have a Zip Car space in our one, or two, three
13 spaces. So, if the students want to use the car on the weekend, they can check out the Zip Car
14 thing. I mean, to me, that is what we're hoping will be the kind of creative thing that they PDOD
15 proposals will bring in. And they might ... you know, we'll have to see if they work or not.
16 Okay, so I' Il make a motion to deny the request for modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) .
17 based on the fact that it is detrimental to the public good.
18 MS. CARPENTER: Second.
19 CHAIRMAN' SMITH: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Roll call
20 please.
21 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
26 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
27 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
28 MS. KIRKPATRICK: No. Oh, sorry, I mean yes.
29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
30 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
38
1 something that is a, you know, traditionally single-family residences, is the compatibility issue,
2 and that's what density gets at. And, I think ... you know, how can you be compatible with one
3 side, and also the other, and that's tough. I mean, we always talk about how's it going to be
4 compatible with the neighborhood. Well, how is it also compatible with the commercial district
5 behind it. So, I think that I would normally be, personally, agreeable to, you know, somewhat of
6 an increase in that density because of this, but, I think that at the number that's being proposed, I
7 probably can't support it.
8 I can't, I'm sorry, we've closed that comment. Paul, I'm right, aren't I? I want to make
9 sure, I don't want to get in trouble again.
10 MR. CAMPANA: I just want to second what Andy's saying, and that is, you know, from
11 the back elevation, when you're in the alley, it does kind of fit it. I don't have as much issue
12 with that. But, transitioning to the residential on the other side of the street makes it much more
13 difficult, and I think we have to be sensitive, more sensitive to that than the back alleyway. But
14 it is, you know, it's a difficult site to develop. You guys have put a lot of thought into it, a lot of
15 creativity, and it's a lot when you're looking at it from the street side.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think even from the neighbors on the side...
17 MR. CAMPANA: And sides, you're absolutely right, and the sides.
18 MS. CARPENTER: I would also have to say that I would be in favor of it if it weren't
19 going into the Historic District.. This is our National Register Historic District, and I think, even
20 when you're talking about a buffering, there's a difference between going into a neighborhood
21 that's not a historic district, and going into the Historic District. It just, to me, makes it much
22 more problematic.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch?
24 MR. STOCKOVER: With that said, we're still on the first modification. And, when I
25 look at their set of plans, the first thing that really irritates me is when a developer threatens us
26 with, this is what we'll do if you don't allow this. And, on this one, I'm not taking it that way.
27 I'm taking as, yeah, we can park a bunch of cars out back, uncovered, and put twenty -some units
28 with two -bedrooms, forty some people in there in this way, or, let's think outside the box on a
29 very unique property and accommodate it a little better. And, I think ... I truly believe that this is
30 not a threat, but, here's a better solution. And, whether this is voted up or down, I think we
31 always need to remember to look at this as a very unique site, and not a precedent setting
32 decision, because we aren't setting a precedent city-wide, we're making a decision on a very
33 unique piece of property. And, the fact that the house to the north has, you know, quite a bit of
34 open parking behind there, you're not affecting their backyard really. The fact that it's up
35 against a pretty tall building in an alley ... most everything that we would be giving variance for is
36 hidden from the public view when you drive down Remington and not able to be seen at all when
37
1 at another plan, but I just don't think that that particular solution, although, you know, it might
2 be good, justifies doubling the density. I mean, that's just about it, it says... staff report ... was
3 exceeding by 94%, or practically twice as much as would otherwise be permitted. And, in my
4 mind, always, when you have a modification, modification means a change. And, so, it's like,
5 this is very ... when you're almost doubling, that's pretty major to me. It's almost like a totally
6 different thing, not just modifying what would ordinarily be allowed there. So, I guess I can't
7 support this modification.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer?
9 MS. CARPENTER: I agree with Brigitte, that in this case, I think that we're solving a
10 problem after we create it, if we allow this density. But, even if you look at next door on this,
11 it's not just next door, it's the whole area that we have to think about. And, across the street, that
12 block face, and the change we make to this block face by adding that much density. So, I'm
13 having a hard time getting past these numbers, too. It's just so far past that, I think Ms. Rollins
14 spoke to it, when she said it's almost like a rezoning, as opposed to a modification, when you're
15 looking at that much difference in the numbers.
16 MR. CAMPANA: I'll just comment that, I think, as architects, you guys did a really nice
17 job articulating the front to try to bring down the scale. I like the way you've thought that
18 through, from a pedestrian perspective, and I'd like to see that a little bit more in future projects.
19 Good job on that.
20 MS. KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I also think that the project has a lot of redeeming
21 qualities, and I really like how you've done the front face of the project to try to tie in with that
22 neighborhood character. When I think about what we are tied to in our decision making,
23 fundamentally I don't think that this modification is in line with the neighborhood, and I do think
24 it's detrimental to the public good, because the numbers are so astronomically different than
25 what is required currently in the Land Use Code.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing I would say is that, I think that the applicant has made a
27 case about this, you know, that ... it's a buffer, of really only four hundred feet, and that you're
28 making a transition from a very dense, commercial area right along College, to a residential
29 neighborhood that has a very different character, and how tough that is to be able to, you know,
30 accomplish that feathering effect, really, in just, you know four hundred feet. You know, I do
31 think that, you know, in looking at even the diagram, that it does ... I would probably be
32 supportive of a nominal, inconsequential increase, above that. And, I can't say for sure, but it
33 would seem that, in order to make that transition more effective, it might call for a higher
34 density. And, I think that, you know, along those lines is, you know, one thing we've always had
35 to struggle with, and I think we're going to continue to struggle with more and more as a Board,
36 is, when we talk about buffering areas, and how we feather and make the transition from a much
37 higher intensity, especially with the predominant commercial district and commercial use, into
36
1 MR. SHEPARD: That's correct, there's a density cutoff that says, under this you're a
2 Type I, over this you're a Type II.
3 MS. CARPENTER: Can you also have the same, all of these modifications, under a Type
4 I that you have under a Type II.
5 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, that's correct.
6 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further questions from the Board on this one, of staff. Is
8 somebody ready to make a motion or do you want to share some thoughts and deliberate on this,
9 or do you have questions for, even, the applicant.
10 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, I have tons and tons of thoughts on this. There's a lot of
11 great, great aspects to this project. And, a couple of them that are really ... that always hit my hot
12 buttons, are when we do development with no parking. And, part of this first modification in
13 density, is accommodating parking. Now, I've driven by the site a bunch of times recently,
14 looked at it, looked at it, looked at it. And, a couple things come to mind. It's hard when
15 everybody, as a neighbor is opposed. That reminds me of Mountain Avenue and the railroad, the
16 trolley cars went down through there. I volunteered on that project and people we're throwing
17 rocks at us, it was amazing how much opposition to what turned out to be a great project that
18 turned out to be. But, with that said, this is just pushing the numbers so, so far, that it's hard for
19 me to get my arms around whether we're doing the right thing or not. But, I always look at it
20 with a total open mind, I try to look at is with a total open mind. And, I look at the white house
21 that would be to the right, when you look straight on the project. And, the height is almost the
22 same size. And, when I look at floor area on this one, I look at what's behind it, and what's
23 impacted there. I'd have a completely different opinion if that were a row of houses in
24 somebody's backyard. So, you know, we're alleviating a parking issue by building to that alley,
25 and I look at that as a positive. And, the fact that we're taking a lot of the density as covered
26 parking, I think of as a positive. So, on this one, I'm just having a hard time getting over those
27 numbers. I'm generally in favor of it, but I'm having such a hard time justifying the numbers.
28 With that said, I'd like to hear what my Boardmembers' feelings are.
29 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I just feel like you wouldn't need that much parking if you didn't
30 have that much density. So, I mean, you're creating a solution to a problem that you've created.
31 Plus, you know, I know we disagree on this a lot, Butch, but I always feel like, if the whole idea
32 is that you're building student housing close to CSU, again, you should, I think, really ... you
33 can't encourage people not to drive if you keep providing parking spaces. And, especially if
34 they've got a parking space in a garage right there, they're going to take their cars to campus all
35 the time. I mean, it's quite a ways if you're on south campus in those buildings, and, you know,
36 so the only way to really encourage people to use transit, is to provide places that don't have the
37 parking. And, I don't think, see, to me, the parking, you know we could look at it in more detail
35
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'm going to go ahead and move that we take a recess. We've
2 been at it for two and a half hours, and I imagine there's a lot of bathroom breaks waiting in the
3 audience as well. So, we'll just take a break. We don't, so the public knows, when we take a
4 break, we don't discuss this item, just for your confidence. We go to the bathroom, we get a
5 beverage, and we'll be reading this for a few moments. And, so, I would say that we'll come
6 back, if the Board's okay with this, at twenty minutes `til. So, we've got about twelve minutes.
7 Or, do you want to go longer?
8 MS. CARPENTER: No, since they cut it down in size, that's fine.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we'll come back in twelve minutes, we're recessed.
10 THE BOARD TOOK A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING.
11 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of
12 February 161h, we're going to continue with our consideration of the Remington Annex request
13 for modifications to standards. And, as we left it, we were asking staff a few questions, we were
14 about ready to maybe have some deliberation on the Board, if we're done with our questioning.
15 What I'd like to be able to do at this point, I think, is if the Board is in agreement, I'm going to
16 propose that we begin, you know, we've got a few requests here for modifications. I think it
17 makes sense to start taking those one by one, right from the top, and having our deliberation and
18 some questions followed up by a motion, and then we'll just take them one by one. How would
19 you all feel about that? Okay, then let's go to the first one.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: Is that the floor area ratio?
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: That one is density, right? The density, is that right?
22 MR. SHEPARD: And, we've got the slide for you.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Modification to Section 4.9(D)(1), Density. At
24 this point, let's see if anybody on the Board has questions for staff about what's being requested,
25 or any clarifications. Jennifer?
26 MS. CARPENTER: I'm not quite sure if this is in the right spot or not, but I do have a
27 question for staff regarding the Type I. It's been referred to several times that under Type I, this
28 would all be allowed, or something to that effect. Can you respond to that please?
29 MR. SHEPARD: It's the number of units question. Under a Type I, if you're under
30 twenty-four units ... well, you're a Type I if you're under twenty-four, you're a Type II if you're
31 twenty-four or over, as I recall.
32 MS. SCHMIDT: But, just because it's a Type I hearing does not necessarily mean it
33 would be approved, it would just be reviewed by an administrative review officer versus the
34 Planning and Zoning Board.
34
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we'll do that in just a moment here. But, one thing I think
2 is important, I would like to hear from staff, Karen in particular, just on, what your thoughts are
3 about this conversation that you've heard over the past five minutes.
4 MS. MCWILLIAMS: One comment I would make is that the focus of this attention has
5 been on relocating 711 Remington. The crux of the matter is whether this project complies with
6 the standards of 3.4.7 in the Land Use Code, and the project overall still has an impact on
7 numerous other designated Fort Collins landmark, two of those, and buildings that are designated
8 on the National and State Registers, irrespective of 711. So, even if the applicants, or if the
9 Board were to say, go ahead and move 711, it's unlikely that this project still would comply at all
10 with that standard, because you've got the buildings next door, the buildings across the street, the
11 buildings... all other ten buildings on that block, that are listed on the National and State
12 Registers, two of which are Fort Collins landmarks.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Can you elaborate on that a little bit, I'm sorry, I want to make
14 sure that it's fully understood by the Board and everybody. I mean, it's the impact of the
15 proposal as it is ... what we see it now, adversely on other properties.
16 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Historic properties that are either designated as Fort Collins
17 landmarks or, in this case, on the State or National Register.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And, that was a finding... that was part of the discussion, I mean,
19 that was a finding in the LPC hearing?
20 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Yes, well, I don't know if you would call it a finding, it was
21 certainly part of the discussion.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and that was the project itself, okay.
23 MR. ECKMAN: That's a part of paragraph B, I suppose, that would not be wise for the
24 Board to eviscerate. It says, the development plan... it's the last, about third of that paragraph.
25 The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
26 architectural value of any historic property that is A) preserved and adaptively used on the
27 development site ... that wouldn't be applicable anymore, if it's relocated, or B) is located on
28 property adjacent to the development site, and qualifies under one, two, or three above, which is,
29 is it historic and so forth. And, the word adjacent, surprisingly, doesn't mean touching, it means
30 nearby.
31 MR. CAMPANA: The problem is, we've separated it ... we're doing exactly what our
32 process allow here, a modification before a project plan comes forward. But, we really ... it's
33 very difficult to look at this modification without looking at the project. And, you know, we're
34 trying to make a decision on the modification without looking at the project, but this requires us
35 to.
33
1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, we are asking for a modification of standard, and, the grounds for
2 the modification of standard... first, you know, the requested modification can't be detrimental to
3 the public good, it can't impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and we believe that
4 we've satisfied those requirements. And, we also believe we've satisfied and demonstrated that
5 we're addressing, substantially addressing, and alleviate city-wide, areas of city-wide concern,
6 and address important community needs as described in comprehensive plans and adopted
7 policies. It is a matter of public policy and, of course the discussions that are on -going, that
8 aren't yet policy. It's our belief that we have satisfied those modifications and that you could
9 grant us a modification to the standard, to the maximum extent feasible, we've attempted to
10 preserve this site, and allow us to relocate the property, that's really what we're asking for. And,
11 Mr. Eckman, if there's any assistance you could offer, that would be great, or clarification for the
12 Board.
13 MR. ECKMAN: Well, like Mr. Lingle said, I'm not charged with the duty of presenting
14 the case. I think, though, that, in response to your statement, Ms. Carpenter, that the Board can,
15 in the process of granting a modification to a standard, almost eviscerate the standard. I think
16 that their request is to take paragraph B and paragraph E, and just take them out, because this is
17 an important community need, there's no detriment to the public good, and it doesn't impair the
18 intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. I gather that's what the request is.
19 MS. CARPENTER: So, would you say that this Remington Annex Specific Findings that
20 was given to us tonight, that what they're looking for is A one and two on this, and three. Is that
21 what you're saying?
22 MR. ECKMAN: That's right, they have withdrawn B, part B.
23 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, so, but, we kind of got confused there, and that was what I
24 was not really understanding what was going on, so, this is really what you're asking for, the first
25 piece of this?
26 MR. JOHNSON: My apologies for the confusion, and in terms of...to build on what Mr.
27 Eckman said, to, I guess, to eviscerate Section 3.4.7(B) and (E), with condition, and that would
28 be the relocation of 711 Remington. It's very difficult to pursue, and to take the resources of the
29 applicant and the community and the City staff, to try to seek an alternative, an acceptable
30 alternative, unless you know the path you're going down, relocation, is a viable, legal option.
31 And, right now, we're told it is not. So, that's what we're asking for, and to the extent that we
32 want to eviscerate 3.4.7(B) and (E), it would be conditioned upon a relocation to an acceptable
33 site.
34 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now that I know what's being asked of me, I really would like
35 us to take some time to be able to read this, we just got it tonight, and now we know what they're
36 asking for. It would be useful to me to be able to go through it.
32
1 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, you're right Paul, I'm sorry. We have to pick a direction to go
2 though.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, it sounds like the significant community need was what you were
4 arguing.
5 MR. JOHNSON: That was one of the prongs under the modification of standard, correct.
6 But, it terms of Mr. Eckman's comment about what we're asking to be modified, what we'd
7 like ... the bottom line is we'd like to relocate the property and it's been quite a process to get
8 approval, even conditional approval, to do so, and to address that matter because the property is
9 individually eligible. And, you know, ultimately, maybe there's a process, we could get before
10 City Council to determine whether this is landmark worthy or not. In lieu of that, we are trying
11 to find a prudent, feasible alternative to allow, what we believe is a proper development for this
12 location, and we happen to believe that it does advance many policies of the City of Fort Collins.
13 So, back to the modification of standards, if I were to ask that a certain section in 3.4.7(E) be
14 deleted, which I believe is what Mr. Eckman has requested, it would be a modification of
15 standards deleting the maximum extent feasible, so that the Board, in its discretion, subject to a
16 condition ... a condition could be approval of the LPC as to a suitable location, if that's what the
17 Board desires. But, a modification of standard to delete that section, and, I believe that would
18 give the Board the legal authority to grant approval for the relocation, again, with or without
19 conditions. And, is that responsive to your question?
20 MR. CAMPANA: Yes, thank you.
21 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused. When we're talking about
22 deleting a standard, we don't have the ability to delete a standard, so I don't know what we're
23 being asked to do.
24 MR. LARSON: Yeah, the correct term would be to modify that standard for this project,
25 and the reason that we're asking that is ... please recognize that, to relocate a building, you need
26 to negotiate with property owners, come up with an adequate plan that gives the LPC and the
27 City effective information. But, all of that has a cost burden and commitment that's tied with it,
28 that, for the owner, if we went down this line on ten different pieces of property, and no matter
29 what we suggested, the relocation wouldn't be approved, it wouldn't be a very prudent approach.
30 What this would allow us to do is say, yes, relocation is okay, granted that you do these things.
31 But, we would at least know that we're not constantly taking this bencher and spending dollars
32 and investing other community members into a process that will never go anywhere.
33 MS. CARPENTER: So, are you asking for a modification of standard? That's the
34 question, for me, is, if you're asking for a modification of this standard ... I mean, we can't just
35 make this go away in the Code, that's not our job. So, are you asking for a modification of the
36 standard, and if so, then we have to have grounds to do that.
31
1 MR. ECKMAN: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Gino, did you want to hear from the applicant, any
3 clarification on that?
4 MR. CAMPANA: It would help me out, yes.
5 MR. ECKMAN: Also, while they're thinking about that, the culinary expert that I am,
6 that restaurant is Carl's Junior.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks, yeah, come on up.
8 MR. JOHNSON: With regard to the request for relocation, 3.4.7(E) is entitled
9 "Relocation or Demolition," I'm sure you've all read it. But, I read the Code that a property
10 that's individually eligible for landmark designation, and 711 Remington was determined
11 individually eligible for landmark designation by two individuals, the Director and the Chair of
12 the LPC. So, this property may be relocated or demolished, only if, in the opinion of the
13 decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, tried to preserve the site and
14 the structure. What this Code provision does, is it allows P&Z, is my reading of the Code, to
15 grant a relocation. And, as you did correctly state Mr. Smith, that the Code allows P&Z to
16 condition an order, or an approval, whether it's a modification or otherwise... any sort of a
17 provision. So, you know, what the applicant desires to do is relocate this property to a more
18 suitable location. A couple of locations have been suggested and Ms. Bachelet would like to talk
19 about, I guess elaborate, a little bit about the LPC hearing and what was presented, if that's
20 acceptable. Go ahead.
21 MR. CAMPANA: I was going to say, what would really be helpful, to me, is ... since we
22 can't really change a decision that was made by the LPC, I'm not sure it's going to be valuable to
23 us to have a better understanding of that process. What would be helpful is, you know, for us to
24 rule on the relocation, we have to believe that, in our opinion, the applicant has, to the maximum
25 extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure, or object in accordance with the
26 standards of the section. So, that's really what I'm curious... tonight, I want to hear how you've
27 done that so that I could possibly form an opinion as to whether or not you have.
28 MR. ECKMAN: May I interject though. It sounded like what you are thinking is of a
29 way for the Board to determine whether the applicant has in fact complied with that paragraph.
30 If there's compliance with the paragraph, there need be no modification to it. And, I'm sensing
31 the applicant is wanting the same thing, wanting to make a finding that the paragraph E has been
32 complied with because the preservation is not feasible. That's not a modification request. So,
33 I'd like to see how that can be phrased into a modification request. What are we wanting to
34 modify in that standard, and not how are we complying with that standard... that would be an
35 entirely different question.
30
1 eligibility and does not, by the fact of its being relocated to a different parcel, impact those
2 buildings' eligibility.
3 MR. CAMPANA: So, they would never make a decision that it's okay to be relocated
4 without having a location for it to be relocated to?
5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Actually, the motion made was to the effect of...they turned down
6 the relocation of the building. I can actually find the motion here for you and read it to you if
7 you would like. But, the motion was flat out, we find that we do not want to relocate this
8 building. And, the motion passed five to three.
9 MR. CAMPANA: Do you think that was because of the location it was being moved to?
10 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I don't know. There was a lot of discussion about the integrity of
11 the building once it's moved, and how moving a building affects its eligibility to be designated
12 on the National Register, once it's moved, or for State or local designation as well.
13 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, and on our purview here, for what we're looking at tonight, are
14 we looking at the relocation to a specific location, or just being able to prove that it can be
15 relocated.
16 MR. ECKMAN: You'll have to ask the applicant, I think, but I couldn't tell any
17 relocation to a specific location, but, in addition to that, I'm not sure that the relocation
18 itself... you're being asked to modify the standard of the Land Use Code that contains a couple of
19 requirements: 3.4.7(B) talks about, since this has an eligible, Landmark Commission has
20 determined to be eligible, property on it, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development
21 plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic
22 structure. I think that's one of the problems that the applicants have, is with that language. Over
23 on the next page, under paragraph E, dealing with relocation or demolition, it says that the
24 building may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the Board
25 in this case, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site,
26 structure, or object in accordance with the standards of this section, and the preservation of the
27 site, structure, or object is not feasible. So, I'm not sure how the relocation ... I could stand to
28 have some more explanation by the applicant about how the relocation fits in, or if it's just the
29 language about this preservation not being feasible, is what the applicant wants to erase from
30 your consideration, because of the important community need, and so forth. And, on the prior
31 page, the language about the adaptive use of the historic structure, maybe that's really what the
32 applicant wants to take out of the equation because of the important community need, with
33 regard to that paragraph. There are two paragraphs, B and E, that they're seeking modifications
34 for.
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me ask real quick ... we could always, I mean one of the
36 options for the Board is to condition the approval of a request to modify a standard. Is that true?
29
1 property in that area can take advantage of, and a few other various financial incentives that,
2 again, accrue to them by virtue of their designation.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Does it affect the District in any way if certain properties change in
4 character, and then ... or, do they eventually change the boundaries. Would it be reevaluated.
5 let's say, as one person worried, that maybe we would have, after this project, some other
6 projects. ' At what point, what is the tipping point for the District designation?
7 MS. MCWILLIAMS: We don't define the National Register Districts so those
8 regulations, or their way of looking at it, would be how the National Register would look at it.
9 But, indeed, every time a property is demolished or relocated out of it, or inappropriately
10 changed, that is located within the District, that degrades the District and then becomes,
11 typically, a non-contributing element to the District. So, you can have buildings that formerly
12 contributed to having a District, and then, at a certain point you do, you run out of sufficient
13 properties, or even sufficient properties within an area, and then, either the District goes away or
14 the boundaries end up being changed.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you, that helps.
16 MR. GINO CAMPANA: What was the LPC's position on the relocation?
17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Landmark Preservation Commission heard some testimony
18 about two different potential locations. One of them was located near the ... near Cowan Street,
19 in that location, and near the fast food restaurant that's there ... Hardee's... I can't think of what it
20 is right now. But, kind of in that general vicinity, and that was really not discussed at any depth
21 by the applicants, and so the Commission really didn't focus on that one at all. The other one
22 was a proposal for the property at 901 East Laurel, and the Commission did talk somewhat about
23 that property. The building would have been located on the back of the lot behind the existing
24 house. It would be located along a pedestrian pathway that's used also as a drive for the Laurel
25 Elementary School that's that way, but it's a private drive that's closed off much of the time.
26 And, there was little information presented as to the character of the neighborhood, or how the
27 building, if it were to be relocated to this spot, would retain the sufficient integrity to be, still,
28 individually eligible, which is the requirement, that the Landmark Preservation Commission
29 needs to find. So, if a building is relocated into an area that does not retain its individual
30 eligibility to still be designated, then the Commission has to turn it down.
31 MR. CAMPANA: I got the feeling from reading the minutes of the meeting that they
32 weren't as concerned with relocating it. They were okay with relocating as long as they could
33 find a location, as you said, would allow it to continue to be eligible. Am I thinking correctly on
34 that?
35 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I think the Commission would be willing to consider the relocation
36 of the building, they would need to find a location that, again, retains that building's individual
28
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
2 MR. LARSON: A couple points, architecturally, that, you know, recognize that the
3 development that's proposed is doing two things. One, maintaining all the pedestrian along
4 Remington, being that there's sidewalks, porches, everything is in context to the adjacent. What
5 we've done is bring in the ... what doesn't exist, which is adequate parking, safety, and, through
6 traffic studies, all these pieces, to incorporate that on the commercial side. So, I think peoples'
7 concerns are valid. We've heard concerns earlier, about, kind of, traffic flow and size, and how
8 will that be addressed, and that is the intent and the result of what we've put together is ... here's
9 how we're keeping vehicle traffic off of Remington and back towards the College, commercial
10 side. Scale, that was mentioned several times, is in ... you know, we're at two and a half to three
11 stories, which, as you look at 711... my compliments to Brian, is a beautiful revamp of that
12 structure. That is a two and half, three, story building, so we're right in the same ... our proposal
13 is following that same context and scale. Pedestrian along Remington, automobile off of
14 College. Thanks.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the applicant have any other comments you
16 want your team to address. Again, I apologize for my procedural error there, want to make sure
17 you guys get a good chance to come back up and talk. Anything else? Okay, alright, thanks.
18 Let's go to staff real quick, just if there's any response from the staff to either the public
19 testimony or what we just heard from the applicant, as far as their response.
20 MS. LEVINGSTON: We have no response.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, yeah Brigitte, go ahead.
22 MS. SCHMIDT: I'd like to ask one question, just because I'm a little bit unfamiliar with
23 this. Is this district the only district that we have in Fort Collins, and, sort of, what is the
24 implication to being a district versus just being individually, you know, a house here, a house
25 there sort of thing.
26 MS. KAREN MCWILLIAMS: This is not the only district in Fort Collins, it is one of
27 just a couple that we have. This is the Laurel School National Register District. It is designated
28 on the National Register of Historic Places and on the State Register of Historic Properties. We
29 also have the Old Town Historic District, which also is a National and State Register District.
30 And then Fort Collins has a couple of small, Fort Collins landmark districts. The difference is
31 that, if you are in a designated landmark district, such as the Laurel School National Register
32 District, those residents, people that own property within the Laurel School National Register
33 District, get financial incentives. One of the major ones being a 20% state tax credit for any of
34 the work that they do to the buildings on their property. And, they actually receive that benefit
35 by virtue of being designated in the Laurel School National Register District as contributing
36 buildings to that District. There's also State Historic Fund grants that residents or owners of
27
1 three two -bedrooms, would have twenty parking places, so it would be significantly
2 underparked. But, yet, it falls within our ability to build within the Land Use Code under a Type
3 I Administrative Review hearing.
4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Alright, the applicant, you can continue if you have
5 other members of your team that would like to step up and comment. Mr. Johnson, go ahead.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, and thanks for the, you know, the feedback from the
7 audience as well. These are tough issues, and we knew it would be, and it always is. Your
8 Board is no stranger to differing opinions, no doubt about that. You know, really, the focus and
9 the heart of the matter for tonight, in my opinion and the applicant's opinion, is the modification
10 of standard to allow a relocation. We're allowed to proceed on multiple stand-alone
11 modifications, which we have done tonight. But, if the Board, you know, finds ... the Board can
12 find one or all of the modifications appropriate, but, if you were to consider one, just one,
13 modification tonight, it would be the request for the relocation. The issues regarding the density,
14 and FAR and setback would ultimately be determined and brought before the Board again,
15 perhaps in a different form, perhaps not, but it can come back before the Board. So, the granting
16 of the modification for the relocation does not impact further discussion, public discussion, staff
17 discussion, and interaction with the neighbors and the development. On the ultimate scope of the
18 proposal, the Code allows applicants to come forward with modification requests before they file
19 their final plan, and you can get the feedback in this form, as difficult as it is.
20 With regard to the modification on the relocation, the proposal is to relocate ... a
21 modification of standards to relocate 711 Remington from its current position, which again, is
22 located between two intrusions to the District, on the outer fringe of the Historic District, and on
23 the west block side of Remington. We respectfully submit that the relocation of this ... and
24 restoration of this project, would improve the home for the future, at a different location. It
25 would dress up and improve the neighborhood by removing two intrusions, and one home that
26 has been substantially modified in a manner that, we submit, does not convey its original
27 integrity.
28 We believe that, with regard to the community -wide standards, that a proposal of this
29 nature specifically addresses an unmet need in the city of Fort Collins, and. that is for student
30 housing. It's appropriately located for student housing, close to student services, across the
31 street from CSU, close to. the Mason Corridor. All of those are important community assets, and
32 increasing the density around campus, we believe, will actually enhance the neighborhood. And;
33 we consider this property adjoining a commercial alley, although it is part of the District, it's the
34 outer fringe of the Historic District. When I drive, or bike, through the Laurel Historic District,
35 and that neighborhood, whether it was a historic district or not, the commercial alley right there,
36 abutting mixed -use developments ... I don't think of that as part of the residential development.
37 We think it's highly appropriate at that particular location. Thank you.
26
1 want to continue on? Alright, we'll continue going. So, here's what we'll do, is we'll probably
2 ask a couple questions of staff, and perhaps even the applicant, and, at that point, we may be able
3 to get some of your feedback, if that's okay. Real quick, staff, you want to tell us your
4 comments or thoughts about what you heard, any specific points that were addressed or brought
5 up in the public testimony.
6 MS. LEVINGSTON: I believe Paul Eckman covered most of my points, in terns of the
7 public testimony by Mr. Mark Anderson regarding my map on the second modification, my
8 iPhone calculator app is malfunctioning, so I'm not able to doublecheck my math on that, but I
9 could get back to you to ensure that those numbers are correct, that are in the staff report. I had a
10 Zoning inspector check those over and he did concur that those were the correct calculations;
it however, I'm more than willing to go back and revisit those to ensure accuracy.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, any other comments from staff, Paul?
13 MR. ECKMAN: My only comment is that the ... after public testimony, according to our
14 order in our Land Use Code, the applicant response comes next, and finally the staff response to
15 both the public testimony and the applicant response.
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, then I made an error. I apologize. Would the applicant like
17 a chance to come up and refute what they've heard, or comment on what they've heard.
18 MR. BACHELET: I just wanted to say a few things, and clarify a few things. Right now,
19 as it stands in that Remington corridor, 18% are owner -occupied, 80% are currently rentals, so I
20 just wanted to make that clear. There also hasn't been any discussion from public in regards to
21 the negative impact of the Kensington property, which actually exists on Laurel and Remington.
22 That project is a lot bigger than what we're proposing, yet it has no parking and no amenities.
23 Yet, no one speaks about the negative impact that that property may or may not have on the
24 community. And let me add one final though ... one more thing, too, if we went through a Type I,
25 we're allowed to have twenty-three two -bedroom unit, that's forty-six ... I don't think I need an
26 iPad calculator to figure that one out. But, that's forty-six tenants, we're only proposing about
27 the same. And, finally, my sister-in-law came to visit over the holidays, and she brought her
28 brother who went to CSU about twenty-five years ago. And, he took his family out there, he
29 wanted to show his kids and his wife where he went to college. Went around the Laurel District
30 area, I didn't tell him where to go, but that's where he went, and his first comment was, wow,
31 this place looks really tired, nothing has changed. So, again, I do think there are sections of the
32 District that is deteriorating, that is in need of a facelift, and there are other parts of the District
33 that are doing fine and preserving what they intended to do. So, I just wanted to make that clear.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, you bet.
35 MS. BACHELET: Just one point of clarification. The forty-four units has sixty-five
36 parking places, covered, and subterranean. The Type I review that we can build, that is twenty-
25
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
2 MS. RUTH ROLLINS: Good evening Boardmembers, my name is Ruth Rollins, and I
3 live at 5029 Crest Road, outside of the area, but I own properties within the area, also outside the
4 area in the Historic Laurel School District, and down the street on Remington. First, to address
5 Brigitte's question, I lived on Remington Street in 1983 when I was a CSU student, and the
6 neighborhood looks pretty much the same. You know, there are some houses that are nicer,
7 there are some houses that, you know, have lots of bikes in front of them, and lounge chairs, and
8 that kind of stuff, but it hasn't deteriorated at all. I didn't realize it was a ghetto, and believe you
9 me, when my mother came up here with me, if she thought it was a ghetto, I never would have
10 lived on Remington Street, ever. My main thing, you know, and I'm not a historic preservation
11 huge advocate, but I do have an appreciation of that house, that small house. I've always thought
12 that that was kind of unique. Whether it's... hopefully, it's not ever torn down, and, at the most,
13 relocated to a location that might be more appropriate.
14 My big thing is the square footage. To me, this a rezone through modification of
15 standard. I don't know how you can double square footage and call that a modification of
16 standard. It's just too huge, significant, and out of scale. Really, what they're asking for is to
17 rezone this, and I think that's inappropriate in a buffer. I just think that this is incredible, that
18 this was allowed to get this far, but staff probably doesn't have a way to stop it before it gets
19 here. Anyway, I'm greatly opposed to it. I do think the look of it is nice, nicer than a rendering
20 that we got early on, but the density is just phenomenally out of scale. So, thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
22 MS. ROLLINS: You're welcome.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Don't steal the pen.
24 MR. STEVE STANDERING: Hello, my name is Steve Standering. I own property at
25 808 Mathews and 301 and 303 East Plum, have since the `80's. I've seen no degradation in the
26 neighborhood whatsoever. My rents have gone up consistently, and I'm sure everybody else's
27 have too. The only property that isn't kept, are the three properties in question. If the landlords
28 would make some effort to keep them up, that would be nice. We have no need for rabbit hutch
29 houses, quite honestly you're not going to get cream of the crop when you appeal to the lowest
30 common denominator. And, to pack that many people into such little spaces is inappropriate. I
31 would hope that you would not consider this development. Thank you.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else want to address the Board on this issue?
33 We're soon going to close ... I'm sorry, not yet, no, I'm sorry. I've got to be able to make sure
34 we follow the process we have laid out by the Land Use Code. Anybody else from the public
35 like to address the Board on this issue? Alright, we'll close the public testimony at this time. I
36 want to see if the Board needs to take a break. Does the Board need to take a break or.do you
24
1 identify what community -wide concern is being addressed with those kinds of requests. And, I
2 think it's incumbent on the applicant to prove to you that they have met that standard, as opposed
3 to you trying to come up with the justification why they have. That was always a struggle that
4 we had, and I'm not sure that they've met that requirement. While VFLA, I think, has done a
5 really good job in trying to make this massiveness of, you know, the project density and scale
6 and everything, as compatible as possible, it's just, it's really difficult to try to go from
7 something that would be allowed at twenty-three units, to forty-two units, and make it look
8 compatible. So, I guess those are my comments. One other thing, I understand PDOD hasn't
9 been approved, but, in its current form, the two historic preservation standards would not be
10 waived, I mean that would not be something that would not have to be complied with. So, while
11 they might have some provisions allowed by PDOD on the first three modifications, it wouldn't
12 help them necessarily on the other two. So, those are my comments.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
14 MR. LINGLE: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't... Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel, I live about three
15 and a half blocks from the project.
16 MS. INGRID SIMPSON: I'm Ingrid Simpson, actually used to be a member of your
17 Board. I don't live in this area, I live north of town, but I own property on College Avenue. I
18 own those old houses next to the Book Ranch. This is a very difficult decision for developers to
19 decide where to put something that large. I know Robin very well, in fact we had the dental
20 office next to the big building they have on the corner of Laurel and College. And, the time that
21 was before the Board ... well, it didn't go before your Board, but ... it was an administrative
22 one ... we were pretty shocked by the size of it. And, to be real honest with you, it has had very
23 little impact on the dental practice. We don't own that anymore. I realize, back on Remington, it
24 is residential, but I think one thing the City, and we as residents, whether you're in the County or
25 the City, need to start looking at, are all these two and three-story buildings being popping up all
26 over town, that are being approved. For instance, the one on North Grant that badly affected that
27 neighborhood. And, unfortunately, that isn't decided to be a historical area. I grew up on the
28 corner of Washington and Laporte. That house is way over a hundred years old, it's never been
29 looked at as a historical building. So, you know, this may not be the proper project for that
30 particular area, but I can tell you, that eventually, those areas are all going to get changed
31 because the city is growing and growing, and there's the desire to have more nice, high rise
32 buildings, which is kind of sad in a way, because people move here for the small town
33 atmosphere and, quite frankly, to be able to see some mountain between the buildings. I don't
34 know whether this is a good or a bad project, I think it's much nicer on that corner, what they
35 have designed, than they had on the corner of Laurel and College. But, I do agree that the house,
36 the historical building, should be moved, and there should be someplace that's equitable to the
37 Landmark Commission and to the developer. And, since that's the main reason that we're
38 looking at this tonight, I would propose moving that. Thank you.
23
i Remington, you see what's on Remington, you don't see what's on College, so, as far as being a,
2 you know, seeing that buffer, I don't think we need to bring it into the neighborhood any further.
3 And, I just don't believe it fits in the neighborhood. Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
5 MR. MARK ANDERSON: Hi, my name is Mark Anderson. I live at 704 Mathews,
6 about one block east of the proposed project. I've been living there fifteen years, and, like many
7 other people, I've actually seen modest improvements in the neighborhood, no real detriments.
8 A lot of people getting new roofs, new paint, window work, it's a lot of little incremental things,
9 but it's going the right direction.
10 My first point is, I think they actually made a little math error in their calculations of
11 FAR, on item three here of the allotment. They're saying it goes from 0.33 maximum floor area
12 to 2.3. That's actually a 700% increase, not a 199% increase, as represented. The way to look at
13 it is, the lot will provide... if you want to bring up the numbers, I can show you, but the lot will
14 provide for about 2,400 square feet, I think you had in the numbers, and they're asking for
15 19,000 square feet. Okay, my apologies.
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You're fine, don't worry about it.
17 MR. ANDERSON: It's a common math error, people get percentage points and
18 percentages goofed up, but anyway, they are asking for seven times more lot area than the Code
19 really allows. Okay?
20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
21 MR. ANDERSON: Other than that, I think it's a beautiful building, but it's just way too
22 big, way, way, way, way, way too big. Thanks for your time.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. What we'll do is, staff will have some time to look
24 through what you just brought up, and then we'll ask staff here, in a moment, to comment on
25 that.
26 MR. DAVE LINGLE: Good evening Boardmembers, hi Kristen, congratulations on your
27 appointment. I can tell you it's a whole lot more relaxing being out here now. Just a few
28 comments, and I think some of your questions took care of some of the things I was going to talk
29 about. But, I guess, in general, you know, the emphasis of what you're here for is for the
30 modifications, and the presentation from the applicant was sort of all over the place. Are they
31 going to go for equal to or better than, or a physical hardship, or the community -wide concern
32 issue, and that seems to be where they've landed. But, from my experience on the Board, that
33 was generally the more, the most, difficult to justify because it's really hard when you look at
34 doubling the density, somewhere near 200% increase in floor area ratio, except maybe even more
35 than that, and then really no compliance at all with the other three standards. It's kind of hard to
22
1 looks like Laurel, the north side of Laurel between Mason and Shields, which is a lot of new
2 apartment complexes going up, and a lot of commercial. And, the purpose of this neighborhood
3 is it's a buffer zone, and I think we should keep it that way. So, once again, I would like to see
4 you folks go along with the staff recommendation and deny these modifications. Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please.
6 MS. LINDA BLAKE: My name is Linda Blake, I'm a relative recent resident of Fort
7 Collins, and, when I learned about this, I was a little concerned. But, tonight, I've heard a lot
8 about code and law, and what the developer's desire. But, I haven't heard anything about the
9 residents' rights in the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that there are people who have
10 invested significant money, and time, and energy and passion in some of the homes in the
11 surrounding area, and I would just encourage you to consider the rights of those people, in
12 addition to your weighing the value of the project relative to the developer. Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Main, did you sign in? Would you please, for the
14 record. Thank you, go ahead and take your time.
15 MR. LARRY DUNN: Larry Dunn, 729 Peterson Street. We're several blocks away from
16 this, but I'd like to speak to, I guess, the community good part. We've seen some interesting
17 development, in terms of people coming together in this area of town. We get together on kind
18 of a regular basis, like once or twice a month, and people from all of the streets, including that
19 area, and Remington and Laurel, and all of the streets that are adjoining us. And, we just feel
20 that it's a nice mix, you know, we've got students, we've got older people, we've got people
21 with children. We've got a nice community mix, and bringing in a big infusion of students into
22 this mix of people... they're probably not going to be there very long, who are coming in for one
23 year, two years, you know, maybe three years, to live there. To us, it's not a benefit to our
24 community organization that we have. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. While he's doing that, I just want to remind
26 everybody, please do sign in, it's important for a lot of reasons. And, don't steal the sign in
27 sheet.
28 MR. BEN KING: My name is Ben King, and I own the property at 601-603 Mathews
29 Street. It's a duplex, and I bought that property in 1994, and it was deteriorating at that time. I
30 did a substantial amount of work then, and I'm actually planning to do more this year as well. I
31 do believe that that neighborhood is not deteriorating, I mean one property at a time may not
32 look so good, but, you know, people in their timeframe will kind of help bring it back I think. I
33 do agree with most everything that everybody else has said, and one of the biggest things, as far
34 as the size, the mass of that building, the density of the number of people living on that size of a
35 lot, and just the scale, don't fit, in my mind, in that neighborhood. He was talking about it, you
36 know, being a buffer zone, but the buffer zone between College, or from College, really, in my
37 mind doesn't really make ... well, he was talking about, sort of, the down side. When you're on
21
1 a thousand square feet now, the whole thing should be moved, if that's what you guys decide. I
2 don't think it should be, I think it should stay there.
3 What else? I think that this ... I've lived in Miami a long time, and I saw this happen.
4 This is commercial encroachment on a residential district, and it starts just like this. Well, it's
5 just this one block, here, and then all of a sudden, the person next to it wants it, and the guy
6 across the street wants it. If this happens, I will be here asking you for variances to build
7 something like this. I don't want to see it happen, but that's the precedent you would be setting
8 by letting this happen. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please.
10 MR. CARL PATTON: Carl Patton, I've owned the property at 515 Remington for about
11 forty years. I am a, what do you call it, slum lord ... no, you said a different word. I would like to
12 first say that this neighborhood is not deteriorating, there are a lot of committed owners, whether
13 we live there or not, and I think it's going up, thanks in part to the Landmark Preservation
14 Commission's work. That's my first point.
15 Let me also say that they've been consistent over my dealings with them for the past
16 fifteen or twenty years, and they've contributed significantly to the improvement of the area, and
17 to my cost in doing that on my property, which is fine. They did offer to move 711, but they
18 offered to move it to an alley, pretty much, in an industrial area with no real access. I would
19 welcome them providing alternatives for that move. The historic structure needs to be preserved
20 in a good way. I won't go into the attack on the purview of the LPC, that's been stated. My
21 final point is, pure and simple, too many units, not enough parking, traffic flow issues, destroys
22 at least with the proposal I read at 6:00 tonight, destroys the landmark property. Now, they are
23 again proposing to move it, which I would support. But, I don't think that, as proposed, what
24 they want to do, while laudable, is definitely not unique. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please.
26 MR. BILL JENKINS: My name is Bill Jenkins, I live at 710 Mathews Street, and I'm
27 talking for myself as well as my wife, Barbara Liebler, who could not attend the meeting tonight.
28 I agree ... I read ... I had a chance to read the staff report and their recommendation, and I would
29 encourage the Planning and Zoning Board to go along with the staff recommendation and not
30 allow these modifications. It's going from... it's based on the scale, going from a neighborhood
31 that basically has long, narrow lots with single houses, to a huge three -lot, three-story building.
32 And, so, in the staff recommendation, they made notes about density, about the dimensions, and
33 the public good. There's not a case for public good, from what I can see. The benefits to the
34 neighborhood, they haven't been pointed out I don't think, in regards to the standards. And, we
35 have these landmark preservation regulations, we have the Land Use Code, and we have the City
36 Master Plan for reasons, is to not let things go out of control in terms of architecture and density
37 and those kinds of things. My personal fear is that this block will turn into a neighborhood that
20
1 and, in short, I urge you to act on the recommendations of staff, that I find this proposal to be
2 inconsistent in terms of size, mass, and scope of the project, and inconsistent with the context of
3 that block face and the opposing block face. I also urge you to think about the fact that the
4 notices that went out only went out to the specified narrow radius, and that most other people
5 within the Historic District are uninformed about this project. Thank you.
6 MR. BRIAN BEGLEY: Hello, my name is Brian Begley. Through my LLC, I'm the
7 owner of 701 Remington, which is the immediate neighbor of the proposed project. You can see
8 how close it is there to the property line, so, if you're looking for a victim of this massive
9 proposed project, you're looking at him right here. So, I would just urge you to please follow the
10 letter of the Code, it's the only thing I see protecting me here, plus my residents and their quality
11 of life. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Brigitte, go ahead.
13 MS. BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: Well, I would just like to make a general comment to some
14 of the citizens that are going to speak, because there was a lot of discussion by the applicants, I
15 think, about deterioration in the neighborhood and the District and that sort of thing. And I guess
16 I'd like to get some feedback from other people on, if you feel things have been deteriorating,
17 and what might change some of that.
18 MR. BEGLEY: If I could take a minute to address that. Yeah, I bought this in December
19 of 2010, and, yes, it was deteriorating, and that was the fault, in my opinion, of the previous
20 owner. In his mind, I think, he was selling it for investment purposes down the road and it
21 wasn't worth his while to keep it up. In the last year, year and a half, with blood, sweat, tears,
22 and money, I've restored it to some degree of its former glory. It's a 1908 house. It's been a
23 four-plex for fifty years at least, so my property is not deteriorating.
24 MR. TIM FECTEAU: My name is Tim Fecteau, I own a property at 717 Mathews, which
25 is the same block but one street over. I was shocked to hear that I owned property in a ghetto,
26 myself. I mean, this is a Historic District. There are old buildings, some need repair, many are
27 being fixed up, but I try to keep mine up. I've seen the neighborhood come up, I've not seen it
28 deteriorate. This building is way too large. It doesn't fit a Historic District, it's a brand new
29 building. It just...it does not belong there, it's too tall. The parking, I think, is a real problem.
30 Every student ... I rent ... my property has been a rental for students since the 1890's. Every
31 student has a car, and every student that's going to be in one of these buildings is going to have a
32 car, and they're going to need parking out on the street, where it's already short parking now. I
33 think the house that's there is very historic. I was at some other meetings and they called it a
34 handyman house. Because a house was built in the 1880's and had an addition put on in 1920,
35 does not mean that that addition is not historic. either. I think it's, I mean, every house evolves,
36 and it's not just something that was first built when it was five hundred square foot, I think, if it's
19
1 MR. JOHNSON: We'll work through it. We'll withdraw that for this evening.
2 MR. ECKMAN: Okay.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I didn't hear you, what did you say? I'm sorry.
4 MR. JOHNSON: We will withdraw the second, the hardship, prong for this evening.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any
6 questions right now? Of Paul, really, to be able to get clarification.
7 MR. BUTCH STOCKOVER: I just had one quick one. There's been quite a bit of
8 reference to the Plan Development Overlay District, relating to a city-wide concern or important
9 community need, but I think that we need to realize that that has been tabled because there's no
10 consensus and we're looking for more community input. So, that's not a policy that we can look
11 at, in favor or against, because it's still just opinion at this point. So, I think we need to be really
12 careful; would you agree?
13 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, that's not part of the City's law yet. I took it to mean that the
14 applicant was just trying to say that, if it ever should become part of the City's law, they thought
15 they would comply with the PDOD. But, we have no way of knowing that until the law has been
16 established.
17 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay, thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else on the Board have questions of the applicant
19 right now? I'd like to get to public comment as soon as we can, and then we can come back and
20 ask more questions... I'm sure we will, of the applicant and staff. How do you all feel? Okay,
21 let's open this up for public testimony then, please. If you're here and you want to address the
22 Board on this issue, here's how we'll do it. We'll kind of keep it orderly. Can I get a ... raise
23 your had if you're going to speak to this issue, please. That's like six dozen people, that's a lot.
24 Just joking. If you could come up to the microphone, line up ... the way we'll do this is, you'll
25 get three minutes. Please step up, state your name and address for the record and please sign in,
26 and then let's hear your comments please. Ted?
27 MR. TED SHEPARD: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind, for protocol
28 purposes ... we used to have two podiums, but we don't, and so it's really important for the
29 second speaker to line up behind the first speaker, the third behind the second, so we don't have
30 to wait for everyone to get up out of their seat and walk down to the podium.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good point, thank you. Feel free to step up and let's begin the
32 public testimony please.
33 MR. STEVE MACK: My name is Steve Mack, I live at 420 East Laurel, about two
34 blocks from the proposed development. I also own five other houses within the Historic District
18
1 That, I think, is what they're asking you to decide. Is that correct? That's the first step of what
2 you have to decide.
3 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Eckman, that is correct. And, the reason we're ... we focused
4 on the landmark eligibility standard is, we believe that, as part of the analysis of determining
5 whether or not is detrimental to the public good, you have to really look, practically, at what
6 we're requesting to relocate.
7 MR. ECKMAN: Okay, the next part of that request ... the first part, as you know, in every
8 modification that you do, you need to decide that it's not detrimental to the public good. The
9 next part of this request is hinged on the idea of an important community need, one of the other
10 criteria for the granting of a modification. Embedded inside of that important community need
11 criteria, is the fact that you need to make a determination that it would not impair the intent and
12 purpose of the Land Use Code. If you read that provision about important community need, it
13 says that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without
14 impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. That's where that discussion came
15 from... substantially alleviate an existing, defined, and described problem of city-wide concern,
16 or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
17 would substantially address an important community need, specifically identified in the Comp
18 Plan, or wherever. And then, you have to do the how come part on that. You have to make a
19 finding as to how it advances that important community need and does not impair the intent and
20 purpose of the Land Use Code. Finding that it's not detrimental to the public good, you can just
21 make that finding, without explaining how come.
22 The second part of their request has to do with the hardship approach, once again there's
23 the finding that it's not detrimental to the public good, but under the hardship approach, you
24 don't have to worry about advancing the purposes of the Land Use Code, you only have to find
25 the property to be unique, and so forth. And their argument, if I am phrasing it correctly, is that
26 the uniqueness of this property has something to do with alleged misrepresentations made by the
27 City, if I got that straight. That's what's unique about the property that would justify the
28 hardship variance. Talked about inconsistent statements and the applicant, reason to believe,
29 relied on the City's initial determination. I don't know if they want to pursue that, or if they'd
30 rather pursue the other one, or if they want to pursue both. But, that's what I read as I was
31 scanning this document as Mr. Johnson was speaking. Would you like to embellish upon that?
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, come on up.
33 MR. JOHNSON: Our intent is to focus on the first specific finding of fact and not the
34 second one, Mr. Eckman.
35 MR. ECKMAN: So, is it safe to say the Board can disregard that second one and just
36 spend its time ... are you withdrawing that part of the request? The hardship part?
17
1 the modification, which is that the modification, the relocation, must not be detrimental to the
2 public good. We believe that it's not because the property is not landmark eligible, in our
3 opinion. And, secondly, you would need to find that it doesn't impair the intent and the use of
4 the Land Use Code. And, I assume that, I know you're all familiar with City Plan. Briefly, some
5 of the policies that we believe that this project, as proposed, would facilitate, you know, provided
6 the modification for relocation is granted. It's a target infill area, it's a higher density locations
7 in the Code, in City Plan, it prioritizes targeted redevelopment. There's a policy, again,
8 encourage targeted redevelopment and infill. There's a policy 5.2 for target public investment
9 and ... on the community spine. There's a policy 7.7, accommodate the student housing
10 population, and, you know, this particular project at its location, basically directly across from
11 CSU, would fill, definitely, an unmet need, one which is the subject of significant study right
12 now with the Student Housing Action Plan. It encourages housing choice ... so, there's a variety
13 of City Plan policies that we believe this proposal actually specifically addresses, and does so in
14 a substantial way, to alleviate matters of city-wide concern, which is one of the matters that you
15 need to address, or consider. So, I guess, with that, I'll conclude my remarks. I think next it
16 opens up to staff and public, and we're available, and I would love the opportunity to come up
17 again if you find it appropriate, to address specific questions and to go through more
18 information. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Jennifer, go ahead.
20 MS. JENNIFER CARPENTER: Yeah, I would just like to get some really
21 straightforward clarification on this because my understanding is that we do not have purview
22 over whether or not this is eligible, and so, I don't want to spend a lot of our time and effort
23 here ... as eloquent as Mr. Johnson was on those point and these letter are. If that's the case, I
24 would like to spend time based on the things we do have purview over. So, can we get ... I would
25 really like to ... we said it once, but I'd really like to clarify that and get it really straight, what our
26 purview is here tonight and what it is not.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, let's ask Paul.
28 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think what you cannot do is decide whether something is or is
29 not eligible for historic designation. That's something that is done under Chapter 14 by the
30 Landmark Preservation Commission. What, as I have tried to read through these proposed
31 findings while Mr. Johnson was speaking, and he may need to clarify this, but it looked to me
32 like, what is being asked of you in part A of this package of findings, is for you to determine that
33 it is not detrimental to the public good to relocate or, they talk about relocation, although
34 demolition is also certainly a possibility, or relocation to Omaha is tantamount to demolition.
35 And, I think that you are being asked to decide that it's not detrimental to the public good,
36 because that's one of the findings you have to make. Even in the face of the decision made by
37 the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Planning Director, that, even though that
38 happened, it's okay, still, to relocate this, and that would not be detrimental to the public good.
16
1 designation, it has to have exterior integrity, plus it also has.to be significant, both of those
2 requirements are per the Code. In fact, the Code says that before you get to the significance of a
3 structure, under Chapter 14-5, you have to find that the home has exterior integrity, which is a
4 composite of seven aspects, or qualities: the location, the setting, the feeling, and the association,
5 are four of those seven. And, we believe that 711 Remington, at its current location, which is on
6 the outermost fringe of the Historic District, and directly abuts a fairly high traffic commercial
7 alley, and it abutting the commercial, CC, zone district ... we feel that that location is detrimental
8 to, you know, to the original historic value of this home in the 1800's. Also, 711 Remington is
9 located directly between two properties that were listed in a nomination form in 1980 as
10 intrusions to the District. So, what we have is two properties on either side of 711 Remington,
11 which, in 1980, were listed as intrusions to the District, and they are now officially not eligible
12 for landmark designation by the City of Fort Collins. In the middle was the original 711, of five
13 hundred square -feet, that has, in essence, doubled in size with additions, backs to a commercial
14 alley. We believe that all those factors impact, negatively, the location, the setting, the feeling,
15 and the association of this property.
16 With regard to the other three aspects of exterior integrity: the design, materials, and
17 workmanship, we also submit that the home is, as modified, is flawed in that regard as well. The
18 three -car garage that was added on the back of the site in 1947 is a cinder block structure, and
19 when it was converted to a duplex, it also used a mix of materials and workmanship, that we
20 believe is not consistent with the original construction of the home in the 1880's or 1890's.
21 • The ultimate question of exterior integrity, under the Code, is whether or not the property
22 retains the identity for which it is significant. We submit that the property is not significant and
23 it does not meet any of the requirements under Chapter 14-5. We believe that. The Chair of the
24 LPC and the Director made a finding that it qualified under finding number three, we believe
25 that's misguided. But, for the point of discussion, if you were to agree that the property meets
26 that third requirement, and therefore has, you know, some significance, that's one of the two
27 prongs for landmark designation. The other is that it has to have exterior integrity. It must
28 possess exterior integrity before it can be found to have significance. But, the ultimate question
29 of exterior integrity is whether the property has retained its identity. And, the Code ... one
30 sentence from the Code: "ultimately, the question of exterior integrity is answered by whether or
31 not the property retains the identity for which it is significant." If the property is found
32 significant because it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period of construction, or
33 method, which is one of the third prongs, possesses high artistic values ... we believe that this
34 property, because of its extensive modifications and additions, and because of its location that its
35 set in, its feel, it doesn't actually retain any elements for what it could potentially be found
36 significant. So, we're here requesting the modification on two bases. You know, number one is
37 it's not significant. In the alternative, if you were to find that it is significant, we request that you
38 find that it's not, that it doesn't have the exterior integrity necessary to be a landmark. With
39 regard... and that analysis, we submit, is directly relevant to one of the initial determination for
15
1 outcome. A realistic look at Remington should convince anyone that current policies (without
2 new development) is leading to clumsy additions, often for egress from permitted rental units in
3 existing structures, haphazard surface parking configurations, and under -investment in building.
4 improvements by absentee landlords. Denying reinvestment along Remington is more surely a
5 path to more incremental decline than to historic preservation." The last paragraph of his letter
6 concludes: "Again, although I consider myself a historic preservationist, I must conclude that the
7 most appropriate outcome for this property, and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street
8 Historic School District, is to support reinvestment of Remington (at least the west block face) to
9 an urban design standard and an urban density that can support amenities such as high quality
10 housing, structured parking, and well -maintained grounds."
11 Again, I apologize for the inability to have Dr. Koziol here this evening, but the letter,
12 which I read this afternoon for the first time, I think really was very much consistent with the
13 modification and request ... the modification of standards, which, you know, again, emphasizes
14 the relocation, not the demolition, of this particular property. It's not their desire to demolish it.
15 They'd like to relocate it. There's been interest in the community in doing so, and we'd like to
16 continue those efforts in earnest, with the cooperation of City staff, to find an appropriate place
17 where this structure can be restored to its original five hundred square -foot, approximately five
18 hundred square -foot, footprint. But, first, we need the modification of standards to be able to
19 fully engage in that process.
20 And, secondly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the final development
21 plan has been well thought out, and it has gone through many revisions, listening to the feedback
22 of the City and the neighborhoods. But, it has not yet been submitted, and the project vision
23 would come back before this Board for Section 3.4.7 review, as part of the historic district. So,
24 the modification that we're really ... that I'm really focusing on this evening... is the request for
25 the relocation, which allows us to fully develop the infill site, which, according to ... which is
26 consistent with the, you know, the opinion of Dr. Koziol.
27 Secondly, and I guess at this time, Mr. Chairman, do you have questions of me, or would
28 you like to take some time to review the letter?
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, at this point I think you should continue. I want the applicant,
30 for your team, to be able to conclude and then we' I I get to staff, and we'll probably have
31 questions for both of you.
32 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, absolutely. And then, the second submittal were proposed
33 findings of fact, to kind of help guide the discussion, you know, through the relocation request
34 from the applicants' perspective. And, really what we're talking about is a balancing of the
35 public good, which, you know, you read about in staffs report. We believe that, on balance, a
36 relocation of 711 Remington is.in the public good, and advances the public good. This particular
37 structure, we don't believe qualifies as a landmark eligibility property. That, to have landmark
14
1 MR. PAUL ECKMAN: I might also suggest that, with regard to this letter from City
2 Visions, today's date. Before the Board receives ... the other document, apparently.has to do with
3 the findings for the modification of standards.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Correct.
5 MR. ECKMAN: Which would clearly be a relevant document to submit to the Board,
6 though it may take the Board some time to study that document. If there's any question about
7 relevance of any documents that are being presented to the Board, we'd have to discuss that and
8 decide whether those are relevant and should be made a part of the record or not. Or, if made a
9 part of the record, it may take a little advice from me as to whether they should be regarded or
10 disregarded in the context of this hearing. For example, a lot of the issues regarding the behavior
11 or decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission in deciding the eligibility really isn't
12 something that this Board can deal with, that's a decision that was made by the Landmark
13 Preservation Commission under Chapter 14, while we're looking at the Land Use Code.
14 MR. JOHNSON: That's not the intent of my discussion, so ... and, again, when I woke up
15 this.morning, I didn't believe that I'd be going through this letter. I hadn't seen the letter, hadn't
16 read it, and thought I'd be listening, you know, to the speaker. And, unfortunately, we're
17 reacting and doing the best we can, so please bear that in mind. Dr. Koziol is a resident of Fort
18 Collins, he's a Colorado licensed architect and historic architect, as defined by the Secretary of
19 Interior. His resume is in the back of his two page letter, so it's a three page submittal into the
20 record, and his resume is in the back. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy from the
21 University of Colorado, Master of Architecture, University of Illinois in 1986, Master of Urban
22 Planning and Policy, also University of Illinois in 1985, Bachelor of Arts in Cultural
23 Anthropology, University of Chicago in 1980. I'll just focus on just a couple paragraphs in the
24 letter and, for the benefit of the audience, I'll read the first paragraph. This is addressed Robin
25 Bachelet. "Mrs. Bachelet, at your request, I have reviewed issues related to the historic
26 significance and integrity of 711 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. As a licensed
27 Colorado architect; Secretary of Interior qualified historic architect, and degreed urban planner,
28 formerly AICP, I attempted to consider this property in a professional, holistic way. As a
29 preservationist, I might want to save this and other equally "charming" buildings, but,
30 professionally, I find that the current condition of the building and the context of the Laurel
31 Street Historic District, does not merit regulatory in situ protection. However, some form of
32 mitigation, such as relocating the structure, may contribute to the public good."
33 There's a paragraph, bullet point, original survey of eligibility. Another bullet point
34 entitled "Inadequate Argument for Reevaluation." Third bullet point is "Eroded Integrity of
35 District Context" but, it's really the last one that I felt most significant. It's entitled "Bad Results
36 by Incremental Deterioration." And, I'll read that. "Finally, as a planner and Fort Collins
37 resident, I'd like to say, that while many might prefer a nostalgic streetscape along Remington,
38 policies currently in place through zoning and potential design overlays, will not result in this
13
1 modification of standards, is actually less, it's a lesser standard, not detrimental to the public
2 good. But, we believe this actually advances the public good.
3 Another standard that ... or consideration ... that you need to find, is that allowing
4 relocation of 711 Remington will not impair the intent and the purpose of the Land Use Code.
5 Again, we believe that the relocation would actually enhance the intent and the purposes of the
6 Land Use Code. The Code, again, being a lesser standard, not impair ... we believe it enhances.
7 Further, we believe that we meet the requirements that the proposed development, to be
8 facilitated by the relocation, would substantially alleviate and substantially address problems of
9 city-wide concern that are addressed in City Plan, zone districts, overlay districts, and, you
10 know, pending, under consideration, overlay districts, as well as the student action plan currently
11 being discussed.
12 This morning, in preparing for the hearing, I was looking forward to hearing from one of
13 the Bachelet's consultants, a Dr. Koziol, who was, I felt was, and it was my understanding was
14 going to be able to come tonight to speak, but that didn't work out, so we asked him to prepare a
15 letter for submittal into the record, you know, which I have, and, at this time, Mr. Eckman, if it's
16 appropriate, I'd like to offer into the record a letter from a consultant of the Bachelet's, and then
17 also, I have prepared, for the Board's review, proposed specific findings. One of the things that
18 you're charged with tonight, as you're very well aware of, is to make specific findings as to why
19 the modification of standard ... by granting the modification of standard, is appropriate. And, I
20 have prepared proposed findings for your review and consideration, specific findings. And, I've
21 also proposed some general findings of fact that I'm happy to use as discussion points, if you feel
22 relevant. There are ten copies there. May I continue?
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, in one moment. When we get material in the hearing, the
24 likelihood that we're going to read it in a meaningful way is very, very small. I just need to let
25 you know that. And, you know, I think that our options are that, one, I mean if it's material that
26 we're getting at.the hearing, that we would want everybody in the audience to be able to have an
27 opportunity to read as well. Or, you know, the Board may elect to take a recess to read it, or
28 even continue the hearing. I just want to let you know those are a couple things that will be
29 going through our mind. We haven't seen it yet, how lengthy it is, but just so that you know,
30 kind of, what we're faced with is a challenge when getting material this late.
31 MR. JOHNSON: All of those options are acceptable, so please feel free to take a recess.
32 If you do feel that you need to continue the hearing for some reason, we certainly respect that.
33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you.
34 MR. JOHNSON: This is a very important matter, obviously, to the City, to the
35 neighborhoods, to the developer, so, you know, please, let's take time to be thoughtful.
36 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you.
12
1 right fit. It's not the way that, we think, from an urban standpoint, people should be mindful of
2 how to develop along this line between the five -story commercial, and transition into two-story
3 and one-story. residential. Jeff, as we're looking at that, any other comments?
4 MR. HANSEN: This slide just describes what, you know, the scope of the residents that
5 would be there. One thing I would like to note is, you know, as you're encouraging
6 development, you want property owners to take advantage of their site as much as they can.
7 And, even if you were to stick with the lot density standards, you know, you're trying to promote
8 people to maximize the use of the lot, we would be aiming for a total square footage of the
9 building of 19,987 square feet or something. Because of all the other restrictions in place, we
10 can't even reach that, because we've complied with the rear yard and the side yard setbacks, you
11 know, every aspect of the dimensional standards. The density standards of the Land Use Code
12 that we weren't able to maximize the potential of this property.
13 MR. LARSON: Elevations to just kind of articulate, and again, 711 is about 500 square
14 feet sitting there in between the other two wings. And, again, the scale between 701 and on
15 down, is more contiguous with what we're proposing than what would be if 711 remained. Now,
16 I'd like to introduce Jeff Johnson.
17 MR. JEFF JOHNSON: My name is Jeff Johnson and I'm an attorney with Myatt,
18 Brandes, and Gast in Fort Collins. I've been working with the Bachelet's and Vaught Frye
19 Larson on this project. Tonight, I'd like to address a couple things. You know, this hearing is
20 for a modification of standards. You've heard now from the developer and their vision for their
21 proposed development, and little bit from the architect about the project plans that will be filed.
22 And, after tonight's hearing, you know, we would have a year to file the actual plans.
23 You know, tonight, as you know, is a modification of standards, and there's five stand
24 alone standards. What I'm going to address, primarily, would be the last two as they pertain to
25 Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, and Section B and Section E. And really what this is all
26 about is a request by the developers to relocate the property, 711 Remington. That is really what
27 they would like to do, is have a relocation. The original structure was built, records indicate, in
28 approximately 1880's. It was about a five hundred square -foot facility, or home, single-family
29 residence. It's subsequently been subject to a couple significant modifications: a three -car
30 garage, cinder block garage, which you saw in the pictures was added. And then, subsequently,
31 the single-family residence was converted to a duplex. What we'd like to do is focus on the
32 modification of standards. Under the Code 2.8.2, as you know, H, there are really four or five
33 different requirements that need to be met to grant the modification request to relocate. Not to
34 demolish, but to relocate this property, and to restore it to its original five hundred square -foot
35 structure in a more appropriate setting. One of the first standards is that, the grant, the
36 modification of standards, is not detrimental to the public good. We actually believe that this
37 particular request for relocation would advance the public good by allowing the particular site to
38 be improved and enhanced to modern Code standards. So, the code for, the standard for, a
11
1 MR. LARSON: Let's jump to the next. Now, this next few slides is going to articulate
.2 the, I think, some of the challenges that Planning and Zoning is seeing, and the reason that the
3 PDOD is coming up. That overlay district allows for, I think, the intent of the NCB to better be
4 facilitated, so you wouldn't need modifications like we're asking for today. The commercial
5 district that is ... sits right to our side, as I mentioned earlier, is ... if you built that to the full
6 extent, that's a five -story ... you can imagine that, all the way down college, you know, twenty
7 years, and I love hearing, you know, people talk about in the `80's when they bought their first
8 house out on Ticonderoga off of Lemay, that it was a dirt road that you drove there. Now, you
9 look at how that development has happened, and how do you forecast, you know, where are we
10 going to be in the next twenty years, and how do you have your zoning meet that growth
11 effectively? So, where we're at with NCC, five stories. NCB, which is a transitional zone ... and
12 I agree a hundred percent, it is a transitional zone, and should be a scale break to the NCM;
13 however, if you read through the requirements, and, if we go to the next slide, this is a quick
14 sketch of, according to Code, how that breaks out. And, I think the intent of that transitional
15 zone isn't as effective as the language. So, you have, and here's a great illustration as you see,
16 five story to the, you know, front -loaded three-story transitioning over, and then to the NCM.
17 The language, the intent of the Code makes perfect sense. The implementation in the actual
18 parameters starts to say, you know, why do I have a front -loaded building with a backyard to a
19 five -story commercial building. I don't want to have my back yard to a restaurant's grease
20 container, personally.
21 So, with the next slide, here's how this project starts to infill that transition. And, I do
22 believe that, if you read the language, this is really starting to be the intent. _ And, in the premise
23 of the PDOD, this is exactly the intent, that we're able to bring in infill and make that transition
24 where the alleys are safer, the pedestrian ways are better ... we're improving that whole flow, and
25 still being respectful to the adjacent neighbors that start to transition into the NCM.
26 Now, as we get into the ... tying into the idea of being able to push that setback ... this
27 image, and I think we're getting feedback from a couple people that thought we drew this image.
28 This image is actually right out of ... it's kind of a compliment, I take it, that people looked and
29 said, we, this, you just drew this because this is your project. And, it's like, no, this matches our
30 project, but this is right out of Section 3.4.7 of the this not this ... where, you know, you can see
31 how the scale of the buildings are being maintained along the street, the mass is being set back,
32 as opposed to letting that mass be forward.
33 Now, when we look into the this not this, if we were to build this project exactly to the
34 letter of the law where we shift the bulk of the mass forward, we step the sides in, and we
35 maintain 711. This is a quick rendering of what that would be, realize that these take us a little
36 bit of time. Since we submitted to, our proposal, we did have time to continue to develop that,
37 and here is the project that would, again, be, as Robin talked about, with the twenty-three unit,
38 meet an administrative review. We don't believe that this is the right project. This has got an
39 open parking lot in the rear. It meets everything in the language, so we won ... great, it's not the
10
1 completely conform, and several do not. If you look at the average, which is the last image on
2 that slide, it is extremely minor, to the point of how it is not meeting the language of the Code on
3 setback. We believe that the articulation is critical, and more important than creating a uniform
4 side that all would ... if you can imagine if the whole building fit that last slide. So, that
5 articulation gives the building definition. And, because, predominantly, we are north and west
6 side is facing an alley and a parking lot, that there isn't , from a solar study side, it's not
7 that ... the shading of this is a detriment to the public either. Jeff, did you have any thing that I
8 kind of gleaned over on that?
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Could you speak ... turn your microphone on if you're going
10 to ... we want to get this on the record please.
11 MR. JEFF HANSEN: There's a statement in the staff comments that there was zero
12 setback to the building. I think these drawings illustrate that, you know, on the left we have the
13 building footprint at grade, and then at eighteen feet, according to Code language, we wouldn't
14 be required to step back at all, and the building has already started to step back at points, you
15 know, at eighteen feet above grade. This next slice through the building is at thirty feet above
16 grade, and you can see significant setbacks, you know, along the side yards. And these sections,
17 you know, kind of show a vertical view that demonstrates that same thing. A few examples of
18 how we've provided varying setbacks on the north and on the side yards.
19 MR. LARSON: And, it's that step back and articulation that allow us to have material
20 changes and scale that really fit the scale of the area. And, again, change is perception of when
21 you are walking at pedestrian level, how you experience buildings. Change is really what your
22 height and dimension of any structure is, as opposed to a flat plane that just runs off into space.
23 The next item is...
24 MR. HANSEN: Talking about the lot density and the rear yard floor area ratios.
25 MR. LARSON: Which, again, in the ... there's several kind of conflicts that the gull of the
26 comments that came out of, kind of, LPC and on to some of the other City language, describes
27 the intent to be able to control the massing at the front, relative to scale of the adjacent buildings,
28 move any large massing to the rear of the site. Now, that's one of the goals, both in the City
29 Plan, as well as mentioned in the PDOD, as well as was some of the design feedback we got
30 from LPC. So, you know, it is a balance to which Code language you want to meet. But, in the
31 NCB, it would read that, you know, we'd have 0.33 percent on the back lot, which would not
32 lend itself, effectively, for us to be able to set the mass towards the back of the site. And, what I
33 think we're really able to do is keep that scale appropriate to the street level and make a nice
34 transition to the back of the lot ... meet parking, meet all of the requirements that we've heard in
35 public review. Jeff, do you have any additional items on that?
36 MR. HANSEN: No.
V1
1 gotten feedback and really looked at, how do we develop the architecture to kind of follow the
2 City Plan and follow the character... and, as you see, the next slide, to say that, well, if we break
3 it up into three individual buildings and how, if we be mindful, in the next slide, of setback and
4 spacing and the character of the street, the elements that are, again, incorporating the masonry
5 that you see across the street, the stucco that is on our site and adjacent, the lap siding, the.
6 change of materials that, although we are proposing... we're developing three lots and a project
7 that, at one time, is going to not only solve both energy, life safety, and kind of some needs that
8 are in the area ... and I can talk more to that. But, that, in implementation, this really would be,
9 visually to the street, and the way that you experience as you walk through any downtown site,
10 three buildings that are interlinked by a connected parking structure and everything, that's set
11 back beyond it.
12 We step to the next slide ... and this is ... a comment was made of, that we've heard several
13 times, the concern with planting the trees that are existing along Remington, and on our site, of
14 being mindful of, that we've met with City Forester, we've incorporated the site plan layout to
15 keep all the trees that are in good health and then bring in more. So, when we're showing
16 images, the ... it's harder to understand the architecture if we show what the landscape material
17 along the street is, so we've taken the liberty to remove, visually, the existing treescape,
18 primarily for visual understanding. But, recognize that the slide before is really, when the
19 project is in completion, how our building will be perceived from across the street. Now, the
20 next slide.
21 Robin mentioned that this is in the PDOD district that is currently just in draft form.
22 And, I really want to commend the City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning, that this is going
23 to be a helpful tool in order to help infill along borders to CSU as well as downtown. If this were
24 implemented the way it's in draft form right now, we would meet, with being very conservative
25 in our review, we would meet seventy-four of the forty-five required points under that guideline.
26 Some of those are on the community side, with adjacency to transit, to school, to public
27 resources. Others are on the environmental side with the fact that we have ... all of our on -site
28 detention is being handled, we have a rainwater ... we have incorporated rainwater system in the
29 front, the use of recycled materials of ... also, because Robin and Christian are long-term owners
30 so they are very concerned with the energy modeling and how efficient, and that, if we were to
31 move forward, this would meet LEED certification. So, all those steps that are, I think, again,
32 how buildings should be built and why we're extremely proud to be involved with this project.
33 If we step to the next slide, now as we get into the variance requests, the ... again, a lot of
34 these in the PDOD would be part of the process, because the way this is laid out really lends
35 itself to being ... we're on that fringe between commercial development and residential. And, so,
36 we're really looking at this from an urban standpoint, of how do we make that transition, and
37 how do we give good articulation. So, in order to give this building a lot of break up in
38 dimension on all elevations, that the requirement on building setback... if we step to the next
39 slide ... you can see, what we've done, is taken several sections along the building, and several
8
1 tonight, however, this process that we have had to undertake over the past years has created
2 undue cost, stress, and hardships, all of which is unnecessary. We believe in Old Town and we
3 believe in historical preservation; however, the market has spoken, and I hope you can receive
4 my comments as constructive criticism in this process. Thank you so much for your time and I'd
5 like to introduce Justin Larson.
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
7 MR. JUSTIN LARSON: Justin Larson, I'm architect of record with Vaught Frye Larson.
8 Our office is at 401 Mountain. I would also like to add that I'm a resident of downtown, or
9 downtown Fort Collins for the last twelve year. I live, fortunately, just outside the Laurel School
10 District so 1 wasn't deterred when my wife and I decided to remodel our house.
11 We are enormously proud to be part of this project. I do think that, in contradiction to the
12 statement earlier, that this does not fit the language and intent of the adopted codes, I believe this
13 is, again, the right project, and is a great fit. And, we'll start to talk through that. I want to step
14 back for a moment, Jeff, if we can, and run through a little bit of the site context. I know you
15 guys have seen the pictures and I'm hoping that many people ... I believe we have residents here
16 tonight and, hopefully, you guys have had a chance to walk through the site. But, this is standing
17 across the street looking directly on the project. We've had the benefit, as we've been going
18 through the process, to meet with City foresters and talk about the trees and landscaping. You
19 can imagine the difference even this scene has as the full foliage and everything takes on. It's
20 easier to see a lot of the structures, but these are quite heavily lined ... tree -lined streets. The
21 structures across the street are buried in materials. You'll see lap siding, to stucco, to brick,
22 some structures that are two and a half to three stories tall there, and some structures are one and
23 a half stories tall. As we click through and we look at the alley side, this is the ... we're kind of
24 walking down heading south on the alley, Collegio is just to my right, and then as we turn
25 around, here is Collegio which is in the ... it's zoning, that structure's about three and a half
26 stories. By the way it's zoned, that could have been a five -story structure. So, I think one of
27 the ... I think the tasks that the City has, and Planning and Zoning has, is to not only look at where
28 we're at today, but where is the City of Fort Collins headed, and where will, based on zoning,
29 things start to develop. So, as we walk through this, be mindful of how the City is, and will be,
30 developed. This is Kensington, it's just across the street. This is a three and a half, about, is it
31 forty-seven feet? Four stories. And, is it forty-seven Jeff? I think it's at forty-seven feet, it's
32 about ten feet higher than the structure we're proposing.
33 Now, the other thing that's been a ... I think a good compliment to Robin and Christian
34 and everybody that's involved in the project, is how it's developed, both through informal and
35 formal meetings and getting feedback. So, here's some renderings of early conceptual drawings
36 looking at how this would start to fit and how it's developed of each time, feedback where, you
37 know, a lot of the terminology... step back one, Jeff. A lot of the terminology of saying, this sole
38 project that is a forty-two unit mass, reads like some of the early conceptual ideas. But, as we've
7
1 potential harm or adverse impacts had been undertaken." In other words, we deemed this to be
2 prudent and feasible to reconstruct.
3 There were two meetings that we had with LPC, and both times we tried to have an
4 opportunity to refute the eligibility, and it was not ... we were not heard. The one positive note
5 that came out of the LPC meeting, that it came to a vote that three board members, including the
6 Chair, voted to relocate 711. We had proposed to relocate the middle property, 711, to another
7 location there on Laurel Street, just east of that location, closer to Riverside. And, we did get
8 three board members to conclude, or to vote, to have it moved. So, the point I'm trying to make
9 is that this property, 711, is indeed an intrusion.
10 So, the example of Chapter 14, together with the Land Use Code, negatively impacts the
11 entire process by unwarranted hardships to the owners, all designed to slow down the process
12 and drive up the cost of redevelopment. LPC interpretation of Chapter 14 and the Land Use
13 Code adversely affects the fate of these properties. If local developers like Robin and I can't find
14 a way to develop an infill boutique property; then the theory will be that we'll have no choice but
15 to sell our properties to another landlord who will likely keep them as rentals. By doing so, the
16 Code enables any opportunity for local developers to address the needs of the community, and its
17 impact that burdens the surrounding neighborhood. Keep in mind that such actions only add
18 unwarranted cost to the City by staff having to enforce various codes and violations to land laws
19 throughout this district. That is why we are coming to you, Planning and Zoning, to help resolve
20 these differences. LPC's interpretation of Chapter 14, again, only enhances this problem. One
21 major reason why certain sections of the district is turning into student ghettos, is because it's no
22 longer prudent and feasible for owners to maintain their properties. Yes, we do have a low
23 vacancy rate, but at the end, landlords are able to get and maximize the rent from these
24 properties; but, unfortunately, these properties are very difficult to maintain. Not only do you
25 have property taxes, insurance, but the wear and tear and the overall maintenance makes it very,
26 very difficult. You can just go up and down that corridor and you can see one property after
27 another after another slowly being deteriorated. And, so, obviously, some of those pictures show
28 that.
29 So, we believe that the student ghettos will only continue to spread throughout the district
30 unless developers are given the opportunity to provide safe, affordable, sustainable housing near
31 CSU, providing a safe and secure environment with on -site management, energy efficiency, as
32 well as providing basic amenities such as parking, internet, washers and dryers, and, encouraging
33 residents to walk to Mason Corridor, CSU, and Old Town. If such proposed projects are
34 discouraged, then developers will have no choice but to switch their projects further away from
35 CSU and Old Town, like the proposed student housing north of the Poudre River. Such projects
36 will impose unwarranted burden on the existing infrastructure. Infill development will pull
37 students out of the districts; Collegio is a testament of that. And, in doing so, it will encourage
38 tenants to go into quality products that produces quality behavior. Again, quality product will
39 produce quality behavior. So, I know this is very difficult to raise these issues before you
3
1 In August of 2011, 711 Remington was determined individually eligible. And, let me
2 just sort of step back a bit and just give you a little background of just how we got here. Prior to
3 purchasing the three properties, Robin and I received our first initial conceptual review staff
4 comments on January 26, 2009, in which Karen McWilliams confirmed that both 705 and 715
5 Remington are not eligible, but referred to 711 Remington as "the other property are probably
6 not eligible." And, being that it's a Type II review, it would be subject to LPC. Two and a half
7 years later, after Robin and I had decided to move forward with this proposed development and
8 putting our team together, we met with Karen McWilliams and Steve Dush to discuss the
9 eligibility of the three properties. Following that meeting, Ms. McWilliams provided new
10 comments that directly contradict her January 2009 comments. First, she said that 711
11 Remington would qualify for individual landmark designation, and, two, the proposal is a Type
12 II review and would be subject to P&Z review, and would not need to go to LPC for decisions.
13 Again, we're having two different types of narrative coming from City with regards to this
14 process. However, two months later, in August of 2011, both the Director of the Community
15 Development and the Chair of the LPC made the determination that 711 Remington be deemed
16 as individually eligible. Now, this conflicts with the intent outlined in Chapter 14. What should
17 have happened was that LPC should have presented their recommendations to the City Council.
18 At that point, we too could have had our opportunity to refute the eligibility. That never
19 happened. As a result, this process has been tainted and now we find ourselves in this figure
20 eight process. Do we go in front of LPC? Do we not go through LPC? You know? And it just
21 goes around and around. And, as a result, it's now deemed as eligible and we have no way to
22 refute this until today.
23 I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the LPC subjectively base their opinion on seven
24 criteria: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feelings, and association. According
25 to historical records, 711 Remington is described as irregularly shaped and we've realized that
26 there have been major alterations performed on this property, dating back to 1947, '62 and '63.
27 All three alterations are still visible today. The property is deemed as a duplex with a detached
28 garage and a shed located in the alley. These alterations are consistent with the intrusions within
29 the district. In other words, it's been significantly modified. There's the detached garage and
30 shed that sits on the alleyway there.
31 So, once it was deemed eligible, the process was then redirected back to LPC. So, back
32 and forth. As a result of the meetings ... as a result of the two meetings with LPC, we, the team,
33 respected the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7 by providing LPC with renderings, and we had the
34 rendering there earlier. And, our intent was "is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent
35 feasible, that historical resources are preserved and incorporated into proposed development."
36 That does not adversely affect the integrity of the historical surrounding. And I believe that our
37 rendering and the efforts done by our architects have proved that. Also ... we also informed the
38 LPC that we, the landlord and developer, that we exercised the right that "no feasible and
39 prudent alternatives exist and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations or minimize
V
1 issue and they would like us to address these. So, a project that we could build today with LUC
2 standards... within the LUC standards, would not be the product we want. We feel it would be
3 more impactful to the neighborhood. Two -bedrooms, we feel, invite more parties, more traffic,
4 more people. The one -bedroom, studio units tend to be extremely manageable. Again,
5 something that we're familiar with, comfortable with, and have been doing for the better part of
6 ten years now. So, we've really chosen the more difficult route here, in coming into a Type II
7 review, rather than going the administrative route, because we believe deeply in this product and
8 this project, that it's the right one for this area. We feel like we are in harmony with PDOD,
9 SHAP, Transit Overlay District, and I think, you know, in conclusion, I would like to state ... put
10 out a few of the facts from a recent student housing survey that was done in 2011, CSU student
11 housing survey. Eighty percent of the students polled would choose to be within walking or
12 biking distance of campus, 48% would choose to be in close proximity to a bus route or other
13 transportation, 44% of those polled would choose to be in an energy efficient and safe structure,
14 and 75% of those polled would also choose to have parking available to them. So, again, the
15 right project in the right area is the forty-two unit studios, one -bedrooms, with sixty-five parking
16 places.
17 I think that it's also important to look out into the future and to try and figure out what
18 this particular area might look like if it continues to deteriorate at the level that it is. There hasn't
19 been a lot of investment in the area. We've invested in this area for about seven years. The
20 Collegio building was built in 2003-2004. We've watched that area deteriorate, continue to
21 deteriorate. We purchased these properties with the intent of building a beautiful project that
22 would serve a need and be a safe, long-term, sustainable housing opportunity for the large
23 demands that are being created by the University, and are largely going unaddressed. There's
24 going to be ten thousand students added to the University rolls and they've only planned for 860
25 beds on campus. They are clearly looking to the community to provide student housing and to
26 fill this delta. So, that's all I have tonight. I'd like to introduce my husband, Christian, who
27 would like to talk about the process and how we've gotten here. Thank you.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
29 MR. CHRISTIAN BACHELET: Thank you for this time. I'd like to thank P&Z as well
30 as the City for having this opportunity to speak tonight. Before this meeting, I guess, I was
31 looked upon as trying to play the bad cop in this delivery here, in this narrative, and I'll try not to
32 do that so much. But, I wanted to start by really speaking to the Municipal Code, Chapter 14,
33 which is the landmark preservation, and, to highlight the manner in which this code was
34 executed and administered, and more importantly, how Chapter 14 impacts the integrity of the
35 historical preservation process and how in conflicts with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, in
36 my opinion. As we all know, the current three properties are in what's known as the NCB, of
37 which two of them are listed as intrusion.
4
1 property management business from 1996 to 2005. We managed approximately 450 residential
2 properties; 65% of those were student housing, mainly in the vicinity of the University. Seventy-
3 five percent of those single-family dwellings were student housing near the University. We feel
4 like we're very well experienced in the student housing market. We have two different
5 completed projects today that we would deem to be successful. One is the Collegio building
6 which was referenced here, at 706 South College. It is a mixed -use building, it's 37,000 square
7 feet. It has covered parking, retail, office, and then twenty residential units on the third floor.
8 We also have 1335 Elizabeth, which is the corner of City Park and Elizabeth, also a retail,
9 mixed -use, basically comprised of retail and student housing. Also, we would deem a successful
10 project. Residential is generally 100% leased. These projects, in our mind, are successful
11 because of the product that we offer. It's a higher end studio, one -bedroom type component. We
12 like these, especially because they are, we feel, more manageable, less impactful. The student
13 that is interested in renting the studio apartment is serious about their studies, not interested in
14 partying. These are well managed, well maintained projects that seem to run along, you know,
15 without issue. We also have parent co-signers on all of our leases, which just adds to the
16 accountability. This is a proven product for us, it's a product that we like and that we know, and
17 that we would like to build here'.
18 We ... having Collegio in the area, exactly mirroring the proposed project, there is a
19 synergy there that makes this project very worthwhile for us. We also have a significant,
20 obviously a significant, vested interest in the area. We'd like to improve the alley, we'd like to
21 provide more student housing, suit the needs. As was mentioned in the staff report, it is on the
22 fringe of the District, it's about seven feet from the western boundary, and it's about two hundred
23 feet from the University. This kind of project utilizes existing infrastructure, it's close to
24 transportation. We're about a block from the Mason Street Corridor. It's easy for kids to ride
25 their bikes to school, less vehicle trips per day, you know, all of the things that we find promoted
26 in City Plan and the SHAP, or the SHAP study, and it's also being considered in PDOD. We
27 believe this is the right project, and that it's the right location, and that we're the right developers
28 to do it. And, we feel as though the low vacancy rates and increasing student population and
29 other reports and statistics indicated in the SHAP, and other student housing studies, are really
30 sort of in sync and in harmony with this project that we're proposing. We feel like the project
31 that we're proposing is, you know, something that we are well -versed in managing. It inherently
32 relieves a lot of the impact to City services in keeping, you know, trying to keep those yards of
33 the student houses, and trash out of the yards, and the number of enforcing, let's say, things on
34 the book like the three -unrelated rule, noise violations, things like that. Projects such as ours,
35 that takes the pressure off the City services.
36 I think it's also important to point out that, based on the current LUC standards today,
37 without these modifications, we can build a twenty-three unit building. We could build twenty-
38 three units with two bedrooms. It wouldn't be properly parked, it would be underparked, which,
39 according to neighborhood meetings that we've had, parking and traffic flows are a significant
3
1 half of the lot, per the standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33
2 standard by about 195%. You can see from this plan the rear floor area ratio and how much of
3 the proposed project would be in the rear of that lot.
4 The third modification is to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d). This standard requires that buildings
5 taller than eighteen feet step back the height in excess of eighteen feet, one foot per every two
6 feet beyond eighteen feet in height. As proposed, the structure is thirty-six feet tall. It is not
7 stepped back at any point from the interior side lot lines. You can see the project elevations here.
8 The fourth and fifth modification are to Section 3.4.7(B) and (E). These standards
9 require designated or individually eligible structures to be preserved and incorporated into the
10 project's design to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed project does not preserve or
11 incorporate the project at all into the design.
12 Right here you can see a picture of 711 Remington Street. This is the individually
13 eligible structure. This is 705 Remington Street, and 715 Remington Street. Both of those
14 structures are not individually eligible but are part of the site. This is a photo looking northeast
15 to 711 Remington Street, and this is looking east across the street from the project site. This is
16 taken at the corner and this is looking at the project site. This is a photo of the alley between the
17 existing Collegio development and you can see the proposed site would be right there. This is
18 the property to the north, 701 Remington Street, and, you can see right here, this would be where
19 the proposed project would be. This is the Community Commercial zone district, this is the
20 NCB zone district, and this is the NCM zone district.
21 Due to the scale, massing, and overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School
22 National Registry District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of
23 the proposed plan because it is not equal,to or better than a plan that would comply with each of
24 the standards, nor does it substantially alleviate a city-wide, or substantially further other cited
25 City Plan policies. That concludes my staff presentation.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the Board have any questions of staff at this
27 point? Any clarification? Okay, let's get to the applicant presentation. Would the applicant
28 please step forward and tell us about their project please.
29 MS. ROBIN BACHELET: There's a sign in sheet, should I sign in?
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, if you don't mind. State your name for the record and sign
31 in please.
32 MS. BACHELET: My name is Robin Bachelet. I'm going to go ahead and sign in here.
33 Okay, again, my name is Robin Bachelet. My husband and I are proposing the Remington
34 Annex project tonight. Wanted to give you a little background on who we are and what we do.
35 Christian and I have lived here since 1996. We had a fee management business... residential
2
1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: Let's jump right in to our very first item, the Remington
2 Annex modification of standards request. Could we get a staff report please?
3 MS. COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications:
4 one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district density standards, one for NCB
5 rear lot floor area ratio standards, one regarding the NCB dimensional standards, and two
6 relating to the historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the
7 existing structures, and combine the lots, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street, constructing
8 one multi -family building with thirty studio units, eight one -bedroom units and four two-
9 bedroom units, for a total of forty-two units. Additionally, to meet the parking requirement, the
10 applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage with one level at grade and one below grade
11 providing a total of sixty-five parking spaces.
12 As you can see from this zoning map, the parcels are located in the NCB zone district,
13 and they are also part of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. This is the
14 approximate location of the site in regard to the Laurel School National Register Historic
15 District. All three subject properties, 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street are located within the
16 boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980. Two of
17 the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register
18 intrusions when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 block of
19 Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the District.
20 The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible
21 for local landmark designation; however, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as
22 the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in
23 August of 2011.
24 The first modification is to Section 4.9(D), Density. This standard requires that buildings
25 in the NCB district have a total lot area equal to the floor area of the project, a one to one ratio.
26 That is to say, a 19,897 square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area.
27 The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a total of 19,897
28 square feet. The first modification would permit the proposed multi -family development to have
29 an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet allowable per
30 the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density, exceeding the standard by about
31 94%. You can see from the proposed site plan, the lot density.
32 The second modification is to Section 4.9(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio. This standard
33 requires that, in the rear one-half of the lot, no more than 33% of the land can be devoted to the
34 gross floor area of the building and garages combined. The proposed rear floor area ratio on the
35 rear half of the site 2.28. The total lot area is, once again, 19,897 square feet and the rear half of
36 the lot contains 9,948 square feet. The second modification would permit the proposed multi-
37 family development to have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This
38 equates to 19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in the rear
HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Tuesday, February 16, 2012
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Remington Annex Modification of Standards, MOD120002
Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 16, 2012
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Andy Smith, Chair
Gino Campana
Jennifer Carpenter
Kristin Kirkpatrick
Brigitte Schmidt
Butch Stockover
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Administrative Assistant
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Courtney Levingston, City Planner
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
1
ATTACHMENT
Verbatim Transcript of
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing,
February 16, 2012