Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STANDARDS - MOD120002 - DECISION -Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 17 Chair Smith asked McWilliams if the relocation was conditioned upon placement within the district (maybe on a parcel that's been noted as an intrusion), how would that apply. McWilliams said that would be very difficult to answer. It would depend on where in the district. You impact the district in two ways, one from the loss of the building on Remington and two the addition of the building into another area that didn't have that building. Schmidt said but if its' a historic building wouldn't that improve whichever part of the district its goes into. McWilliams said the National Register of Historic Places is about authenticity. If a property does not have a building right now and you bring another in; it has an affect. It's not a matter if it would look pretty; it's a matter of authenticity. Member Carpenter said if we were to allow this modification, we need to think the applicant has shown no feasible or prudent alternative exists and that all possible efforts were made to comply. She said she can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven't been looked at. She thinks it should not be relocated. Member Schmidt said she hears people talk about City Plan and other policies; the one she rarely hears about is the commitments in City Plan to maintain and support existing neighborhoods. Especially with this neighborhood being a historic district, it would really impact it and the people who live there. When you move into a historic district and you start spending money to fix up your property, you have a certain expectation. If other people could come and chip away at their efforts, that is very detrimental to those people. Chair Smith said as we continue to implement the many goals and objectives of Plan Fort Collins, we're going to have competing objectives around campus. There are historic homes, we want to build density, and we want to build student housing --all in the same area. He said the work that is done by the historic preservation professionals and the LPC needs to be respected. There are nuances between the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code that need to be explored but in the meantime what he's learned about relocation and the authenticity of a historic district; he would probably vote to deny the request for modification at this point. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) because it is detrimental to the public good. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Member Stockover dissenting. Modification Request 5 Section 3.4.7 (E) — Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification request to to LUC Section 3.4.7(E) based on it is detrimental to the public good. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Member Stockover dissenting. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 16 direction to go in designing the- articulation in the future but for the Board's consistency, maybe let's just vote to deny and we'll know exactly where we are with it. Member Campana asked if a denial would hold for a year. Eckman said no. They could ask for a modification in connection with a Project Development Plan. Campana said if approved it's good for a year, if it's denied they can come back with a plan and ask for a modification at that point. Member Smith said that's wise, he stands corrected. He's going to vote to deny. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 4.9(D) (6) (d) setback (Dimensional Standard) because it is detrimental to the public good. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Modification Request 4 LUC Section 3.4.7(B) — Eligible for Local Landmark Designation General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Member Carpenter said she really cannot support a modification request. We have a structure that has been declared individually locally eligible, it's in the middle of a historic district, we have historic fabric all around it and she thinks it's detrimental to the public good. Member Kirkpatrick said she would agree. Perhaps she'd be more willing to accept the relocation of the home itself if it wasn't in a historic district. To her that's the really important piece. Member Stockover said this reminds him of the little house that's between the food locker and the church —nice little house but maybe not the best location for it. He thinks that house could shine somewhere else. He thinks the house is destined to mediocrity because of the houses on either side. Carpenter said she thinks those homes could be turned into nice houses and could shine again without moving 711 Remington out of the historic district. Stockover said if it was him, he'd say let them move it. Member Schmidt said she would agree with Carpenter's last comment —the two houses on either side are the eyesores in the neighborhood. She used as an example the structures on Laurel north of campus. Some have been done in a way that fits into the scale of the neighborhood. It's very possible you could do something like that, would still be student housing, and be beneficial to the public good. Member Campana said this is by far the hardest decision --demolition or relocation. He said he hates driving down Laurel today and seeing all the homes that are being demolished. The texture —the feel of Laurel has completely changed. With this being in a historic district, he doesn't think it's the right idea to go in there and remove homes or demolish them. As much as he agrees with Stockover about relocation; when he looks at the context of the neighborhood and what it would do if it's not in there, he would have a hard time supporting it. As much as he wants to support some of the other city policies and get housing near CSU, it just seems like the wrong street on which to do that. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 15 Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 4.9(D) (5) Floor Area Ratio because it is detrimental to the public good. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4:2 with Chair Smith and Member Stockover dissenting. Modification Reouest 3 LUC Section 4.9(D) (6) (d) — Dimensional Standard Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Member Campana said the issue with this is to separate the modification from the actual design because the design seen in their packet does a great job articulating the building. The average exceeds the standard in meeting•the intent of that code. He said the difficulty is to approve a modification without having the final plan. Member Schmidt asked if technically because the first two modifications have been denied, this plan could not really be built. Levingston said that's correct. Schmidt so what Campana has stated is how we can approve this modification to something that isn't fully designed. Chair Smith thinks we need to take them in isolation without consideration of the other requests —approved or denied. If nothing else, give the applicant the feedback on the specific request so they can go forward. Eckman said you can't have any assurance that the drawing is what would be manifested in the end. The request is this is a different kind of project that meets an important community need and alleviates a problem. Because of that it merits the modification to this dimension standard as so long as you can also find it does not impair the intent and purpose of the LUC and it's not detrimental to the public good. Levingston said the modification is to Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) which is, "nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood." Member Carpenter said but if we approve that we're not really approving what the drawing indicates. They could come back with a totally different plan. She's having a hard time saying that this one works. This looks pretty good but if we approve that, it is means nothing. Campana agrees so their choices are approve, deny, or continue it. He would feel a lot better to continue until you have an actual elevation. Chair Smith said the architect did a very good job of being able to show the modification is nominal and inconsequential through averaging. He would support this request for a modification if this follows in a subsequent development proposal. He thinks it's not detrimental to the public good. Member Campana said the issue is the modification stands for a year. Any project brought forward for a year could go vertically straight up from the setback and not have to apply to this portion of the code at all. Both Campana and Carpenter said that's their hang-up. Campana said it would be different if they were looking at this design/this modification (which he could support) but it's very open ended. Member Schmidt said it's a moot point. You really aren't getting anything even if the Board approves. She said the applicant has heard the Board's feedback that they like this plan and it's generally the Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 14 Chair Smith said the applicant has made a case that it's only 400 feet from College Avenue and it's a transition from a very dense commercial area to a residential neighborhood. He thinks the Board will continue to struggle when they talk about buffering areas and how we make the transition from a much higher intensity to a traditionally single family residence. How can you be compatible on both sides? He would normally be personally agreeable to somewhat of an increase in density but at the number that's being proposed, he probably can't support it. Member Campana agrees with Smith. From the back elevation, it does kind of fit in. But transitioning to the residential on the other side of the street makes it much more difficult. We have to be more sensitive to that than the back alley way. It's a lot when you're look at it from the front and sides. Member Carpenter said she'd also be in favor of it if weren't going into the historic district. Even when you're talking about a buffering, there's a difference between going into a neighborhood that is historic than one which is not. It makes it much more problematic. Member Stockover said the thing that really irritates him is when a developer threatens the Board with this is what we'll do if you don't allow this. On this project, he's not taking it that way. He's taking it as yes we can park a bunch of cars out back uncovered and put 24 units with 40 some people in there. Or, let's think outside the box on a very unique property and accommodate it a little better. He truly believes this is not a threat but a better solution. We need to look at this as a unique site and not a precedent setting decision. With regard to density, he can be in favor of it. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 4.9(D) (1) Density because it is detrimental to the public good. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Member Stockover dissenting. Modification Request 2 LUC Section 4.9(D) (5) — Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Member Schmidt would like to point out that the one gentleman was correct —it's actually 7 times the amount allowed. Levingston said they'd be allowed 3,283 square feet for all three lots combined in the rear 50% of the lot and they are proposing 22,712 square feet and includes the at grade parking. Chair Smith said as he reads the intent of the standard, he thinks it has more to do with keeping the buildings up front than creating a back yard. He's supportive of this request for modification because he believes with the character of the neighborhood they've been able to demonstrate that it's not detrimental to the public good. He believes they've been able to meet the intent by keeping the buildings up front. Member Carpenter said that part of the intent of the standard was to keep back yards back yards. By building into the back part of the yard, you impact the yards on either side of you. She's having a hard time supporting this request for modification of standard. Member Schmidt agrees with Smith except for 7 times the allowable is such a big modification. Member Kirkpatrick said she would be inclined to agree with Smith given the fact that it's in a buffer zone and that it backs to an alley, it makes sense to use the back portion of the site so you can preserve the character for the pedestrian level scale and the character that abuts the residential community. She does think that fundamentally the 7 times difference is significant. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 13 On their return, Chair Smith suggested the Board handle one modification at a time. Modification Reouest 1 Land Use Code (LUC) Section 4.9 (D) (1) — Density Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one- half (7%) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). Member Carpenter asked staff about Type 1. It's been referred to several times that under Type 1 this would all be allowed or something to that effect. Chief Planner Ted Shepard said it's a number of units question. The project is Type 1 review if you're under 24 units; Type 2 if your 24 or over units. Member Schmidt said that the fact that it's a Type 1 it does not mean it is approved. It would simply be heard by an Administrative Hearing Officer. Member Carpenter asked if you could request all the modifications under Type 1. Shepard said yes. Member Stockover said there are a lot of great aspects to this project. He thinks they're pushing the numbers so far that it's hard for him to think we're doing the right thing. He believes: • The height is the same as the adjacent property on the right. • When he looks at floor area and what's behind it. He thinks it's a positive. He'd have a totally different opinion if that was a row of houses —somebody's back yard. He thinks we're alleviating a parking issue by building to that alley. • The fact that the rear lot is covered parking is a positive. He's generally in favor of it but he's having a hard time justifying the numbers (density). Member Schmidt said she thinks you would not need that much parking if you didn't have that much density so you're creating a solution to a problem that you created. Plus if the whole idea is building student housing close to CSU you can't encourage people not to drive if you keep providing parking spaces. The way to encourage people to use transit is don't have the parking. In her mind when you have a modification, modification means a change. When you're almost doubling, that's pretty major to her. It's not just modifying what would be allowed there. She can't support this modification. Member Carpenter agrees with Schmidt. She thinks we're solving a problem after we create it if we allow this density. The change we would make to this block face by adding that much density would affect the whole area. She's having a hard time getting past these numbers. As Ms. Rollins noted —it's almost a rezoning as opposed to a modification when you're looking at that much difference in the numbers. Member Campana said as architects they've done a good job of articulating the front to bring down the scale. He likes the way they thought that through from a pedestrian perspective. He'd like to see that a little more in future projects. Member Kirkpatrick also thinks the project has a lot of redeeming qualities including the front face to try to tie into the character of the neighborhood. When she thinks about what they are tied to in their decision making, fundamentally she doesn't think this modification is in line with the neighborhood. She does think it is detrimental to the public good because the numbers are so astronomically different than what is currently allowed. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 12 commitment that's tied to the effort. They'd like to know that they are not taking this venture and investing other community members in a process that would never go anywhere. Member Carpenter asked if they are asking for a modification of the standard. If so, the Board needs to have grounds to do that. Johnson said the grounds are it is not detrimental to the public good, it can't impair the intent and purpose of the LUC, and also they believe they are substantially addressing areas of city wide concern/important community needs as described in Comp Plans and adopted policies. They believe they've satisfied those modifications. Eckman said in response to Ms. Carpenter's statement, the Board can in the process of granting a modification to a standard almost eviscerate the standard. They're request is take paragraph (B) and paragraph (E) out because this is an important community need. That there is no detriment to the public good and it doesn't impair the intent and purposes of the LUC. Member Carpenter asked if what they're asking for is Al, 2 and 3 in the submittal —Remington Annex Specific Findings for Modification of Standards per the information sheet supplied by Mr. Johnson. Eckman said correct, they've withdrawn B. Johnson said to add to what Mr. Eckman has stated —to eviscerate Section 3.4.7 (B) and (E) with condition. That would be the relocation of 711 Remington to an acceptable site. It would be very difficult to pursue/take the resources of the applicant, the community and city staff to try to seek an acceptable alternative unless you know the relocation path is a viable legal option. Right now they are told it is not. Member Carpenter said now that she understand what's being asked of them, she'd recommend the Board have a recess to be able to study the materials. Chair Smith agreed. He'd like to ask McWilliams what her thoughts are about the conversation the past 5 minutes. McWilliams said one comment she'd make is the focus - all this attention - is on relocating 711 Remington. The crux of the matter is really whether this project complies with LUC 3.4.7, because the project overall still has an impact on numerous other designated Fort Collins landmarks and buildings that are designated on the National and State Registers, irrespective of 711 Remington. Even if the Board were to say go ahead and move 711 Remington, it's unlikely that this project would comply with that standard (considering the affect on) —the buildings next door and across the street; the ten buildings on that block. Eckman said that's a part of 3.4.7 (B) which he thinks would not be wise for the Board to eviscerate. He referred to Section 3.4.7 (A) Purpose... and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is . intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site. And (B) General Standards... The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Member Campana said it's very difficult to look at the modification request without looking at the project. We're trying to make a decision on the modification without looking at the project but the modification to the standard requires them to. Chair Smith said the Board will take a break. He wanted the audience to know when they take a break they do not discuss the proposal. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 11 structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. Eckman said for Modification Request 5 Section 3.4.7 (E) — Relocation or Demolition - A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. Eckman said the applicant wants to "erase that from consideration" because of the important community need. The applicant may also want to take the 3.4.7 (B) adaptive use out of the equation because of the important community need. Chair Smith said one of the options of the Board is to condition the approval of a request to modify a standard. Is that true? Eckman said yes. Jeff Johnson said with regard to the request for relocation, 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition. This property may be relocated or demolished only if in the opinion of the decision maker as to the maximum extent feasible tried to preserve the site or structure. His reading of the code is it allows the Planning and Zoning Board to grant relocation and to condition the approval. Member Campana said what would be helpful to him since we can't really change a decision made by the LPC, is to have a better understanding of that process. To rule on the relocation, the Board would have to believe that in their opinion the applicant has to the maximum extent feasible attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standard. That's really what he is curious about. It would aid him in formulating an opinion as to whether or not the applicant has. Eckman said if the applicant complied there would be no need for a modification request. He'd like to see how that would be phased into a modification request. What do we want to modify in that standard and not how are we complying with that standard. Member Schmidt said it sounds like the applicant is arguing a significant community need. Johnson said yes that is one of the 'prongs" of the modification standard. He said in terms of Mr. Eckman's comment about what we're asking to be modified; what they'd like is to relocate the property. Maybe there is a process they can get before City Council to determine whether this is landmark worthy or not. In lieu of that, they are looking for a prudent, feasible alternative to allow what they believe is a proper development for this particular location. They do happen to believe it advances many policies of the City of Fort Collins. Johnson said if he were to ask if a certain section in 3.4.7 (E) be deleted, it would be a modification of standards deleting "to the maximum extent feasible" so that the Board in its discretion and subject to a condition such as an approval of the LPC as to a suitable location could approve. He believes that would give the Board the legal authority to grant approval for the relocation with or without conditions. Member Carpenter said she's thoroughly confused. When we're talking about deleting a standard, they don't have the ability to delete a standard so she doesn't know what they are being asked to do. Justin Larson said the correct term is to modify the standard for this project. He asked that they please recognize that to relocate a building they need to negotiate with property owners and to come up with an adequate plan that gives the LPC and the City effective information. All of that has a cost burden/ Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 10 Robin Bachelet said the 44 units have 65 parking places --covered and subterranean. The Type 1 they could build is 23 — 2 bedroom places and they would only need to provide 20 parking places. Jeff Johnson said the Board is no stranger to differing opinions. He said the focus and the heart of the matter for tonight is the modification of standard to allow a relocation of 711 Remington. He said they are allowed to proceed on multiple stand alone modification requests as they've done tonight. The code allows applicants to come forward with modification requests before they file their final plan. The Board can find on all the modification requests but if they were to consider one modification tonight, it would be the request for the relocation. The other modifications could come back before the Board. The granting of the relocation request does impact further discussion. Johnson said the request to relocate is for a structure between two intrusions on the outer fringe of the historic district and the west block side of Remington. They respectfully submit the relocation of 711 Remington would significantly improve the home at a different location. It would also eliminate the two intrusions to the district. Also, the project specifically addresses an unmet need for student housing close to transportation and student services across from CSU. Justin Larson said the development as proposed is doing two things. One is maintaining the pedestrian experience along Remington and the other is it brings in things that don't currently exist —parking and safety. Peoples' concerns are valid. That is the intent and the result of what they've put together. Staff had no response to the applicants' comments Board Discussion Member Schmidt asked if this district is the only district in Fort Collins. Also what is the implication of being a district versus just being individually eligible? Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams said this is not the only district —it is one of a few. This is the Laurel School National Register District. It is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Properties. There is also the Downtown Historic District and a couple of Fort Collins Landmark Districts. McWilliams said if you are in a designated landmark district, those residents are eligible for financial incentives. One of the major being a 20% state tax credit for any work they do on their property that contributes to the district. There are also State Historic Fund grants for which they are eligible. Member Schmidt asked if it affects the district if any properties change in character. Can the boundaries be reevaluated? McWilliams said the City does.n't define the National Registered Districts boundaries. If a property is demolished or relocated or inappropriately changed that degrades the district and it becomes a non-contributing element to the district. Over time the district goes away or the boundaries are changed. Member Campana asked what the LPC's position is on the relocation. McWilliams said they heard some testimony about two different potential locations. One of them was located near Carl Jr's. The other one was 901 E. Laurel. In that case, the building would be moved to the back of the property's lot behind the existing house, and be visible only along a pedestrian pathway. Very little information was presented on the character of the neighborhood or how the building would retain sufficient integrity to still be individually eligible, which is a requirement the LPC must find. McWilliams said when moved it should also not impact the receiving property's eligibility. McWilliams said the LPC motion was not to relocate that building and that vote was 5:3. Member Campana asked if we were looking at a request to relocate to a specific location. Eckman said you'd have to ask the applicant. The Board is being asked to modify the standard of the LUC that contains a couple of requirements. 3.4.7 (B) - General Standard. If the project contains a site, Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 9 good? He thinks they may have landed on community -wide concern. From his experience on the Board, that was generally the most difficult to justify because it's really hard when you're looking at doubling the density —a 200% increase in floor area ratio. He thinks its incumbent on the applicant to prove to the Board they have met that standard. He's not sure they have. He said while VFLA (architects) has done a good job in trying to make this massive project (density and scale) as compatible as possible, it's really difficult to try to go from what would be allowed (23 units) to 42 units and make it look compatible. Finally, he understands that PDOD (Project Development Overlay District) has not been approved but in its current form the two historic preservation standards would not be waived —this is still something that would have to be complied with. It may help on the first three modifications but not on the remaining two. Ingrid Simpson stated she used to be a member of the Board. She lives north of town but she owns property on College Avenue —houses near the Book Ranch. When a large scale building went into what was formerly their dental practice they were shocked but they don't notice it any more. Remington is residential but she thinks one thing the city needs to look at are all the 2 and 3 story buildings popping up (including one on North Grant) that have badly affected that neighborhood. This may not be the proper project for that particular area but she can tell you that eventually all those areas will change because the city is growing and there is a desire for high rise buildings. It's sad in a way because people move here for the small town atmosphere. She does agree the historic building at 711 Remington could be moved and there is likely someplace agreeable to the LPC and developer. Ruth Rollins is a former P&Z member and the owner of several properties in the area including some in the historic district. She said she moved here in 1983, lived on Remington, and the neighborhood looks pretty much the same. It has not deteriorated. She doesn't agree it's a "ghetto". She said she's not a huge historic preservation advocate but she does have an appreciation of that house. Hopefully it's not ever torn down and at the most relocated to an appropriate location. She thinks the proposed square footage is "a rezone" through modification of standard. She thinks that's inappropriate in a buffer. She doesn't know how you can double square footage and call that a modification of standard —it's just too huge, significant, and out of scale. She's greatly opposed to it; the density is phenomenally out of scale. Steve Standehng has owned property at 808 Mathews and 301-303 Plum since the 1980s. He's not seen any degradation in the neighborhood. He's seen viable rental activity with rent increases responding accordingly. If landlords would make an effort in keeping them up that would be nice. Concerning the project, he stated we have no need for "rabbit hutch" houses —you will not get "cream of the crop" when you appeal to the lowest common denominator. To pack that many people into such little spaces is inappropriate. He would encourage not approving this development. End of Public Input Planner Levingston said she believes Deputy City Attorney Eckman covered most of her points. In terms of Mr. Mark Anderson's comments re: the math error on the second modification request; her calculator is malfunctioning so she's not able to check the calculations. She said she did get a Zoning Inspector to check her calculations and she's more than willing to go back and revisit those to assure accuracy. Christian Bachelet said in the Remington corridor 18% are owner occupied, 80% are rentals. There hasn't been any public input as to the negative impact of the Kensington property at the northeast corner of Laurel and Remington. That project is a lot bigger than what they are proposing. It has no parking and no amenities yet no one speaks of negative impact. He said if they had requested a Type 1 (Administrative Hearing Officer) review, they are allowed to have 23 — 2 bedroom units —that's 46 tenants. They are proposing about the same. He does believe that there are sections of the district that are deteriorating and there are others that are fine and doing what they are intended to do. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 8 addition in 1920 does not mean that addition is not historic. He thinks it should not be moved. He believes what's being proposed is commercial encroachment on a residential district. He thinks the Board will be setting precedent and that sum total of changes would not be a good thing. Carl Patton owns the property at 515 Remington for about 40 years. He does not think the neighborhood is deteriorating. There are many committed owners whether they live there or not. He thinks the quality is rising, thanks in part to the work of the LPC. He thinks the Commission (LPC) has been consistent in his dealings with them the past 15-20 years. They have contributed significantly to the improvement of the area and to the cost of improvements on his property. The historic structure needs to be preserved in a good way. He'd like to see an alternative proposal to their initial offering of moving the 711 Remington building to an alley.in an industrial area. He thinks the project has too many units, not enough parking, traffic flow issues, and he thinks what's proposed (while laudable) is not unique. Bill Jenkins lives at 710 Mathews. He's speaking for himself and his wife Barbara Liebler who could not attend the meeting tonight. ' He would encourage the Board to accept staffs recommendation. We'd be going from a neighborhood with long narrow lots with single houses to a huge three lot, three story building. The staff report makes mention of density, dimensions, and the public good. He does not believe there is a case for public good. We have landmark preservation regulations, we have the LUC, and we have the City Master Plan for reasons to not let things go out of control as relates to architecture, etc. His personal fear is this block will turn into a neighborhood that looks like the north side of Laurel between Mason & Shields. He said this'purpose of this neighborhood is as a buffer zone and he thinks we should keep it that way. Linda Blake said she's a relatively recent resident of Fort Collins. Tonight she's heard a lot about code and law, what's the developers' desire, but she hasn't heard anything about surrounding neighborhood residents' rights. She knows there are people who have invested significantly in time, money and passion on homes in the surrounding area. She would urge the Board to consider the rights of the affected property owners. Larry Dunn, 729 Peterson, said he'd like to speak to the community good component. They've seen some interesting development in terms of people gathering socially one or two times a month in this area of town. They feel it's a nice mix of students, seniors, and families. He believes that bringing a large infusion of students who may only be there from 1-3 years may not be a benefit to that community. Ben King owns the property at 601-603 Mathews Street. He bought the property in 1994 and it was deteriorated at that time. He did a substantial amount of work then and he's planning to do more this year. Overall, he does not think the neighborhood is deteriorating --one property at a time may not look so good but owners in their timeframe will help bring it back. He thinks the scale and density for the proposal does not fit in that neighborhood. When you speak to buffering and you're on Remington you see what's there, when you're on College you see what's there. He doesn't think you need to bring one into the other as you might with this project. Mark Anderson, 704 Mathews Street, lives one block east. He's lived there 15 years and over time has seen modest improvements in the neighborhood —new roof, paint, window work. It's incremental but he thinks its going in the right direction. He thinks there's a FAR calculation error. They're saying it goes from .33 maximum floor area a to 2.3 maximum floor area. That's actually a 700% (not a 199%) increase. The lot will provide 2400 square feet and they're asking for 19,000 square feet. It's a beautiful building but its way, way, way too big. Dave Lingle, a local architect and former P&Z member, lives at 517 E. Laurel. In general the emphasis of what the Board needs to consider are the modifications. He thinks the presentation from the applicant was all over the place. Are they asking for equal to or better than, physical hardship, or community -wide Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 7 asked in Part A of the package of findings, is for you to determine that it is not detrimental to the public good to relocate 711 Remington? Even in the face of the decision made by the LPC and the CDNS Director; that it is okay to relocate that property? Mr. Johnson concurred. Eckman said the next part of their request is hinged on the idea of an important community need. Embedded inside that important community need criteria is the fact that you need to make the determination that it would not impair the intent and purpose of the LUC. Further, you'd have to do the "how come" part on that —make a finding as to how it advances that important community need and does not impair the intent and purpose of the LUC. Eckman said the next (last) part of their request is the hardship approach. Once again the suggested finding is it is not detrimental to the public good but this time under the hardship approach; you don't have to worry about advancing the purposes of the LUC. You only have to find the property to be unique, etc. Their argument is that the uniqueness of this property has something to do with alleged misrepresentations made by the city. That would justify the hardship variance. It talks about inconsistent statements and the applicant reasonably relied on the city's initial determination. He's not sure which approach they'd like to pursue. Johnson said their intent is to focus on the first specific finding of fact. Eckman asked if it's safe to say the Board can disregard the second. Eckman asked if they were withdrawing their hardship argument. Johnson they would withdraw the hardship.prong for this evening. Member Stockover said there have been quite a few references to the Project Development Overlay District (PROD) as it relates to community need. That LUC amendment has yet to be adopted because we're still in the public outreach portion of policy development that's not something we can use tonight. Eckman said that's correct it's not yet part of the city's law. He took it to understand the applicant is saying that should it become law, it would comply. We, however, have no way of knowing that until the law has been established. Input Steve Mack lives at 420 E. Laurel —two blocks from the proposed development. He also owns five other houses within the historic district. In short, he urges the Board to act on the recommendations of staff. He finds this proposal to be inconsistent in terms of size, mass, scope, that block face, and the opposing block face. He also urges the Board to consider the notices that went out went out to the specified narrow radius and that most other people within the historic district are uninformed about this project. Brian Begley owns 701 Remington —the immediate neighbor of the proposed project: You can see on the photo how close it is the property line. He purchased the property in 2010. He believes if there is a victim of this massive proposed project, it is him. In the last year, to year and a half through blood, sweat, tears and money, he's restored the 1908 four-plex to some degree of its former glory. He would urge the Board to please just follow the letter of the code. He believes it's the only thing protecting him. Member Schmidt said she'd like to make a general comment to the citizens who are preparing to speak. There was a lot of discussion by the applicant about neighborhood and district deterioration; she'd like to get their feedback on the issue of deterioration. Tim Fecteau lives at 717 Mathews —same block but one street over. He was shocked to hear he owns property in a ghetto. This is a historic district. Some of the old buildings need repair and many are being refurbished. He tries to keep his property up and does not agree the neighborhood is deteriorated. He thinks this proposed building is way too large, does not fit into a historic district, and is too tall. He thinks parking will be a problem with many of the residents parking on the street where they are already short of parking. Fecteau believes the house is very historic. Because a house built in the 1880s had an Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 6 highlighted information in the letter related to Original Survey of Eligibility, Inadequate Argument for Reevaluation, Eroded Integrity of the District Context, and Bad Results by Incremental Deterioration. He read the Bad Results by Incremental Deterioration and last paragraph of the letter. Johnson said the owners do not want to demolish 711 Remington rather they'd like to relocate. They would like to continue those efforts in earnest along with the cooperation of city staff to find a location where this structure can be returned to its original approximate 500 square foot footprint. They seek approval of the modification of standards to fully engage in that process. He said the final development plan has been well thought out and it has gone through many revisions listening to the feedback of the city and the neighborhoods. It has not yet been submitted. The project vision would come back before this Board for Section 3.4.7 review as a part of the historic district. Johnson said the modification he's really focusing on this evening is the request for the relocation — which is consistent with the opinion of Dr. Koziol. He asked the Chair if they had any questions for him or if they'd like to take some time to read the letter. Chair Smith said at this point, he should continue with their team to conclude their remarks. The Board will then have questions for the applicant team and staff. Johnson said the second submittal was proposed findings of fact that help guide the discussion through the relocation request from the applicant's perspective. The applicant believes the relocation of 711 Remington advances the public good. They don't believe the structure qualifies as an eligible landmark property because it is not significant (Municipal Code Section 14-5) and does not have exterior integrity. It lies on the fringe of the historic district and directly abuts a fairly high traffic commercial alley (CC zone district). Also 711 Remington is located between two properties that were listed in the nomination form as intrusions to the district. Further, Johnson reviewed the standards by which modifications can be approved. The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code (LUC), substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. They don't believe it is detrimental to the public good and does not impair the intent and purpose of the LUC. The policies they believe the proposed project would facilitate — target infill area, higher density location, it prioritizes targeted redevelopment and in -fill, targets public investment on the "community spine", and accommodates the student housing population (current Student Housing Action Plan policy being developed). All of the above alleviate matters of city-wide concern: Member Carpenter asked for clarification because her understanding is that the Board does not have purview over whether or not this is an eligible property. She would prefer not spending a lot.of time and effort, as eloquent as Mr. Johnson was, on those points. Rather, she would recommend the Board spend time on the items on which they do have purview. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said what the Board cannot do is decide what is or is not eligible for historic designation —that is something that is done under Chapter 14 by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). As he's reviewed the proposed findings submitted by Mr. Johnson, what is being Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 5 meets setback requirements. He said the north and west sides face an alley and parking lot so shading will not be issue on those sides. Jeff Hansen of Vaught Frye Larson added there's a statement in the staff report that indicates no setback. He thinks the drawings illustrate the building has started to step back at points at 18 feet above grade. He said at 30 feet above grade you can see significant setbacks along the side yards. Larson said it's a balance as to which code (objectives) language you want to meet when it comes to massing and directing that mass to the rear of the lot. The LPC asked for massing in the back to protect the historic building whereas the NCB zone asks for .33 on the rear half of the lot. It does not lend itself effectively for setting the mass towards the back of the site for a scale appropriate to the street level and meeting parking and other requirements they've heard in public review. Larson thinks with the adoption of PDOD, you wouldn't need the modifications they are requesting today. He agrees NCB is a transitional zone and should be a scale break to the NCM zone. The intent of the code makes perfect sense; the implementation in the actual parameters given does not. He thinks they are still being respectful to the adjacent neighbors that start the transition into the NCM. Jeff Johnson is an attorney with Myatt, Brandes & Gast of Fort Collins. He said the Board's heard the vision of the developer and the project design plan from the architect. He'd like to speak to the "last two" modification of standards as they pertain to LUC Section 3.4.7 (B) and (E). He said this is a request by the developers to relocate 711 Remington and restore it to its original 500 square foot. They believe the request for relocation would advance the public good by allowing the particular site to be improved and enhanced to current standards. They also believe it would enhance the intent and purpose of the LUC. Further they believe the proposed development which would be facilitated by the relocation would substantially address problems of city wide concern and which are addressed in City Plan, zone districts, overlay districts (including pending PDOD), and the Student Housing Action Plan (SNAP) currently being discussed. Johnson said Christopher Koziol, a licensed architect and "historic architect" as defined by the Secretary of the Interior Standards; could not be here tonight. Instead he provided a letter. Johnson would like to submit that letter as a part of the record along with proposed specific findings for the modification requests and general findings of fact for the Board to review and consider. Chair Smith cautioned that when substantial material is received at the hearing, the likelihood of it being read and processed in any meaningful way is very small. He said the Board would also like members of the audience who are interested in the topic to have the opportunity to review the materials. Smith said one option the Board may consider is a recess to review the materials. Johnson said that all of the options just outlined are acceptable to them. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said with regard to the February 16, 2012 letter from City Visions/Christopher Koziol which may not be relevant, and the Specific Findings for Modification of Standards; which would clearly be a document relevant to the Board, would take some time to study. He said we'd have to discuss that and decide if those are relevant and should be made a part of the record. Or, if made a part of the record, it may require advice from him as to whether they should or should not be regarded in the context of this hearing. Eckman said for example, the issues, behavior, or decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) in deciding the eligibility really isn't something that this Board can deal with. That's a decision made by the LPC under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Johnson said that is not the intent of his discussion. Johnson said he thought he'd be listening to Dr. Koziol —unfortunately they are reacting to his inability to be here tonight. Johnson provided information on Dr. Koziol's professional credentials. Johnson Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 4 maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. Due to the scale, massing and the overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School National Register District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of the proposed plan because is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with each of the standards nor does it substantially alleviate a City-wide need or substantially further other cited City Plan policies. Applicant's Presentation Robin Bachelet said along with her husband Christian, she is owner of the proposed property. They've managed approximately 400 residential properties, 65% of which were student housing. Two of their properties —the Collegio at 706 S. College and a mixed used building at 1335 Elizabeth (at City Park Avenue) are deemed successful and an indication of their experience with the student housing market. She believes renters of studio and one -bedroom units are generally more serious about their studying and not as interested in partying. Remington Annex is close to the university, near transit such as the Mason Corridor, and has easy access to downtown. She believes this is the development for this property. She believes the 44 units with 65 parking spaces would have very little impact on nuisance violations such as trash and three unrelated. Mrs. Bachelet said they've chosen the more difficult Type 2 path. She believes this infill project with its 44 energy efficient units would be approved under the proposed Project Development Overlay District (PDOD). She also believes it falls into line with the proposed Student Housing Action Plan (SNAP). She believes this project would revitalize a deteriorating area and would address the community need for student housing. 11 Christian Bachelet spoke of their experience with Municipal Code Chapter 14 — Landmark Preservation — how it was executed and administered. He said more importantly how Chapter 14 impacts the integrity of the historical preservation process and how, in his opinion, it conflicts with LUC Section 3.4.7. He said in August 2011, 711 Remington was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation by the CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair. He believes what should have happened was LPC should have presented their recommendations to City Council at which time they could have refuted its eligibility. He provided a chronology of exterior alterations and their experience with LPC. He believes as a result this process has been tainted. "It just goes round and round and there is no way to refute this until today." He said if they cannot find a way to develop an in -fill, boutique property, they will likely sell to someone who will keep them as rentals. It prevents local developers from addressing the needs of the community. He said you can go up and down that corridor and see one property after another slowly deteriorating. They believe the "student ghettos" will just spread along that district unless developers are given the opportunity to provide safe, affordable, and sustainable housing near CSU. He believes quality product produces quality behavior. He submits his comments as constructive criticism of their experience. Justin Larson of Vaught Frye Larson Architects said they are proud to be a part of this project. He provided site context information with photos of the site and adjacent properties. He also presented renderings of the project as it has evolved over time. Larson said they would meet 74 of the 45 criteria of the current draft of PDOD (Project Development Overlay District) addressing in some detail how. He said the owners are very interested in working toward LEED certification. Larson reviewed renderings that exhibited a LUC compliant design, density and FAR calculations, side yard setback elevations, and profiles of the buildings articulation. Larson believes the articulation gives the building definition, is critical to the outcome, and more important than creating a uniform side that Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 3 Modification Request 1 —Land Use Code (LUC) Section 4.9 (D) (1) — Density- Allowed 1:0/Proposed 1.94: Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, 'Total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one- half (7%) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area forpurposes of calculating density). Modification Request 2 LUC Section 4.9(D) (5) — Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Propose 2.28 FAR or 22,712 square feet in rear half of lot: Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Modification Request 3 LUC Section 4.9(D) (6) (d) — Dimensional Standard —Propose 36 feet high and 0 feet step back. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any comer lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Modification Request 4 LUC Section 3.4.7(B) — Eligible for Local Landmark Designation — Does not preserve and adaptively muse the home at 711 Remington: General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places, (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Modification Request 5 Section 3.4.7 (E) — Relocation or Demolition — Does not preserve and adaptively reuse the home at 711 Remington: A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 3. Remington Annex Modifications of Standards, # MOD120002 4. Carriage house Apartments Modifications of Standards, #MOD120001 5. Amendments to the Appeals Procedure contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the Municipal Code 6. Jefferson Street Project (Other Business) Project: Remington Annex Modification of Standards, MOD120002 Project Description: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications; one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District density standards, one for N-C-B rear -lot floor area ratio (FAR), one regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards and two relating to historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the existing structures and combine the lots at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, constructing one multifamily building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units, and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units. Additionally, to meet their parking requirement, the applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage, with one level at grade and one below grade providing a total of 65 parking spaces. The parcels are located in the N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The approval of these modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this request precedes the project development plan. If approved, the stand-alone modifications are valid for one year. Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to continue to move forward with their previous Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan submittal and provide additional plans for approval. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planner Courtney Levingston said Section 4.9 (D) contains three standards relating to density and bulk that the applicant is unable to meet in their proposal for a 42 unit multifamily project. Additionally, the applicant is unable to meet two standards contained in Section 3.4.7 regarding the preservation, to the maximum extent feasible, of an individually eligible local landmark structure that is located within the National and State Register District. All three subject properties, 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980 (see attachment 2). Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register "intrusions" when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register, as contributing to the district. Two of those properties are designated Fort Collins Landmarks. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation however the property at 711 Remington (Button House) was determined individually eligible for local landmark designation in August 2011. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absences Hatfield Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Levingston, McWilliams, Shepard, Bracke, Iverson, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Interim CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda Citizen participation: None Chair Smith asked 9 there were any audience or Board members who wanted to pull items from the Consent Agenda. There was no one. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the January 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Project Development Overlay District —staff asks that consideration is suspended until public outreach is completed. Member Carpenter asked that the Consent agenda be separated by topic as she was not at the January 2012 meeting. Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2012 Planning & Board Hearing. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0:1 with Member Carpenter abstaining. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Board's recommendation to City Council on the Project Development Overlay District (PDOD) be tabled indefinitely. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Member Schmidt made note that the reason PDOD is being delayed is because there's going to be a much larger outreach effort. She said the community will probably be seeing a lot more information on the Project Development Overlay District.