The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STAND. APPEAL - MOD120002 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (10)23 24 Planning & Zoning Board Motions • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript, pg.48-49) The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript. pg. 49) Fort Collins tit Questions for Council Action 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? _Fort [tins Requirements for Modification • To grant the requested Modifications, the P&Z Board must find that: — not be detrimental to the public good; and — not impair the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, and • substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern; or • would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantialI address an important community need specifically andy expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council; and — the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Summary • The Remington Annex Project is located within the Laurel School State and National Register Historic District • Additionally, the house at 711 Remington Street was determined to be individual )y eligible pursuant to the process and procedures in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code • The project does not meet the requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. • In order to grant a modification request to Historic and Cultural Resource standards, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code ns 22 2" d Assertion • Appellants assert that the P & Z Board failed to properly Interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in the denial of the requests for modification — That the proposed modifications are not detrimental to the public good; and — That the project would substantially advance the public good because it substantially addressed adopted plans and policies Fpr"�t\d P & Z Board Discussion • Board discussed value of preserving the existing context of Laurel School National Register District (transcript, pg. 46) • Discussion around detrimental to the public good finding (transcript. pg. 45. line 28-29, pg. 46, line 1-3) ForG"t ns 20 ' 151 Assertion • Appellants assert that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading — Appellant assets that board deferred to staff opinion and information on which the determination of eligibility was based is incorrect, and 711 Remington Street is not individually eligible ns t3 Ji Information Citied by Appellants Eligibility for local landmark designation P&Z Board reference to zip cars (transcript, pg. 39, lines 9- 15) P&Z Board reference to '—potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property..." (transcript, pg. 47, lines 23-27) Letter from Dr. Kozial (transcript, pp. 14&15) ` `"Cothns 18 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Hearing February 16, 2012 • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) • Appeal of these denials filed March 1, 2012 Grounds for Appeal Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading • Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code in the Denial of the Requests for Modification Foi'i Collins Evaluation of Modification Requests " The applicant has not demonstrated a willingness y {{ to consider the prudent alternatives to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the historic building at 711 Remington and adding" stand alone dwellings (duplex or 4-plex) on either side." (staff report, pg. 17) POr, 13 — Evaluation of Modification Requests "Neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design appropriately protects and enhances the historic and architectural value of the historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the other properties in the Laurel School National Register Historic District." (staff report, pg. 18) 14 WlUns 11 Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (E) — Relocation or Demolition Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition, which requires the applicant, to the maximum extent feasible, to attempt to preserve the structure in accordance with the standards of this Section, and show that the preservation of the structure is not feasible. • Maximum extent feasible: no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations have been undertaken. I-A�� t Collins Process for Approving Relocation or Demolition 1T step: Determination of Eligibility - 711 Remin®ton (the Button Houae) 0 di termined to be Individually eligible for local landmark designation August, 1ts 2011 2" step: LPC Preliminary Hearing, October C. 2011 and January 2012 b, fj - No solution found that wouldretain 9fi ',l eligibility 3- step: P 8 Z Board Plan Approval fill. - P 8 Z would need to approve the .Ll. Remington Annex Prolecl, finding that it — complies with all Land Use Code standards including the Cultural and Historic Resources section (3.4.7) 4m step: LPC Final Hearing - At LPC final hearing, relocation/demolition plans are approved, or referred to City Council 9 Process for Determinations of Eligibility for Local Landmark Designation • Landmark Preservation Chapter -Municipal Code • Review historical significance of buildings 50 years old and older • Prevent loss of historic resources; preserve character; allow for public participation • LPC Chair and CDNS Director 711 Remington Street was determined to be eligible for individual local landmark designation. '"ins Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (B) — General Standard Proposed project does not meet all LUC standards: 1: Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (8), General Standard, which requires preservation to the maximum extent feasible for those structures which are (1) deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; (2) officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated as a State landmark; or (3) located within an officially designated historic district 711 Remington meets all three criteria 10 �s Looking Southwest W =� Project Site V �`- Project Elevations FOf s Fa_,�t " E 711 Remington Street _ ,• :d� ram„ F,Ofl�s Looking East from Project Site Remington Street FOIYI_`inns 6 Laurel School National Register Historic District ryd For,.Ot,\s 705 , 711, 715 Remington Street Site of proposed Remington Annex Apartment Project _Fon`Cotlins Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny Two Stand -Alone Modifications in connection with the Remington Annex Project Vicinity Map Fort Collins y Iv IL JF •�{✓ it ,� a ' - r� r o`�"rt ColUns 2 ATTACHMENT Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Council