Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)i Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(a)fcoov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 The applicant also cites aspects of the West Central Neighborhood Plan to support the proposed modification of standards; however the applicant has omitted City Plan principles and policies that are either in opposition to the project, or which could be complied with, should the applicant incorporate the historic resource into the proposed development: Chapter 2, Character of the Neighborhood Goals: LU 18 Historic properties and buildings should be preserved and protected, to the extent reasonable and practical, from development and redevelopment activities. Chapter 2, Neighborhood Appearance and Design: VC 1 Identify which of the unique and pleasing visual and/or historic characteristics in the West Central Neighborhoods should be conserved and improved upon during developmentiredevelopment activities. Chapter 2, Neighborhood Appearance and Design: VC 4 Identify, foster, and maintain the significant historical, architectural, and geographical characteristics of each neighborhood. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01118/2012 01/18/2012 LUC Divisio H) (3) Staff conten a site does not contain exceptional physical conditions or other extraordina�exceptional situations unique to such property, and any difficulties or hardsh meetirf� ng the Ctind U_se Code is caused by the act or omission of the appl' Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 LUC Division 2..2(H)<(4) Staff conten the plan as submitted will not bee nominal or inconsequential manner, a AW no advance.�ie purposes of the Land Use Code. Department: Park Planning Contact Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman(cDfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: No comments Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(cDfcoov.com Topic: General Comment'Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 Additionally, the applicant cites City Plan policies and figures in their modification application that support their proposed project; however the applicant has omitted City Plan principles and policies that oppose the project, or that could be complied with should the applicant incorporate the historic resource into the proposed development: Principle LIV16: The quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the community. Policy LIV 16.4 4 Utilize Planning and Regulations: Recognize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through ongoing planning efforts and enforcement regulations. Policy LIV 16.61 Integrate Historic Structures: Explore opportunities to incorporate existing structures of historic value into new development and redevelopment activities. Principle LIV17: Historically and architecturally significant buildings Downtown and throughout the community will be valued and preserved. Policy LIV 17.11 Preserve Historic Buildings: Preserve historically significant buildings, sites and structures throughout Downtown and the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and architectural character of the surrounding district by using compatible building materials, colors, scale, mass, and design detailing of structures. Policy LIV 17.2 L Encourage Adaptive Reuse: In order to capture the resources and energy embodied in existing buildings, support and encourage the reuse, and adaptation of historically significant and architecturally important structures, including but not limited to Downtown buildings, historic homes, etc. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(alfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 LUC Division 2.8.2(H) (1) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. Staff contends that the plan, as submitted, does not meet 2.8.2(H) (1), as the plan does not promote the general purpose of Standard 3.4.7(B) equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard. The development plan proposes to demolish the historic building, which does not provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the individually eligible historic structure to the maximum extent feasible. The development plan and building design do not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the historic property located on the site. Further, the standard of 4maximum extent feasible4 has not been met The applicant has not provided staff with any other alternatives that could comply with this regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts, nor has the applicant attempted to incorporate any suggestions of staff that could result.in.retaining.the.histodc building. mi � umber 11 � Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 LUC Division 2.8.2(H) (2) The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Couna1 and°the stiict application of such a standard.would� e project practiicallyinfeasible. The need for additio- onnai student:oflented'housing could*dearly be met in a redevelopment plan\ that pIreserves the eligible house for student housing. It may or may not be possible to add as 1 many new units as would a plan that removes the house. The answer to this is part of the reason it is important to start with preparation of a plan that meets the applicable standards. But assuming that it is not possible, then the key question appears to be whether the difference in units would'substantially address the need for student housing. The difference in units appears to be insubstantial -in -addressing the community need for student housing. Staff contends that the replacement of the house with new multi --family buildings, when it appears possible to integrate the house into a development plan, appears to be detrimental to the public good. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(a)fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 This project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), because, while it contains a building that is individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, the plan does not provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure to the maximum extent feasible. This project further fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(B), as the development plan and building design do not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the historic property located on the site. Further, the applicant has failed to meet the standard of maximum extent feasible, by not providing staff with other alternatives that could comply with this regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts, nor has the applicant attempted to incorporate any suggestions of staff that could result in retaining the historic building. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 LUC 3.4.7(E), Relocation or Demolition, states: "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." LUC Section 5.1.2 states, "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 This development project fails to meet LUC 3.4.7(E) as there has been no attempt, to the maximum extent feasible, to preserve the existing historic structure. Further, the applicant has not met the standard of maximum extent feasible by not providing staff with other alternatives that could comply with this regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts, nor has the applicant attempted to incorporate any suggestions of staff that could result in retaining the historic building. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 Modification of Standards 11, Full Compliance, states that if the house is preserved, two of the buildings "would not be developable' The applicant has not provided staff with any plans showing a reconfiguration of the buildings so that either one or both could indeed be built, and have not incorporated staffs suggestions that might lead to such plans being successful in both providing for development while retaining and incorporating the historic resource. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 Because the project as submitted, does not meet the standards of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, the applicant has submitted for modifications of the standards. However, the request does not meet any of the criteria needed for the decision maker to grant a modification of standard as outlined in LUC Division 2.8.2(H). Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams(alfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 The house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, twice in November 2011 and once in December 2011. Therefore, this development will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Comment Number: 2 _ Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 LUC 3.4.7(A), PuXhis*c ates: "This Section is i efided to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1)sites, structuresof lects are preserved and incorporated into the proposeent and /undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic proper y-is _ ;and that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2 ew 'traction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any histgri6properfies in surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect design d or individually eligible h nc sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures objects in designated historic distn , whether on or adjacent to the development site." and Use Code Section 5.1.2, Definitions, s s "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent altemative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." �. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 This project fails to meet LUC Section 3.4.7(A)(1) because it proposes to demolish, rather than to preserve and incorporate into the development to the maximum extent feasible, a structure that has been officially determined to be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. The undertaking would adversely affect the integrity of the historic building. Comment Number: 4 01/18/2012 The applicant•is requesting a Modification of LUC 3.4.7(B) 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: "If the project contains a site, strum determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designatiorvor the State or National Registers of'H`tork: Places; (2) is r landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic officially designated historic district or area, t development plan and building design'shall 1 the historic structure. The development plan historical and architectural value of any histc used on the development site; or (b) is locaati and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above7Nev character of any such historic property, whether on the to the Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 General Standard. LUC ire or object that (1) is for individual listing in fesignated as a local or state or (3) is located within an extent feasible, the the preservation and adaptive use of hg design shall protect and enhance the y that is: (a) preserved and adaptively 3 on Drone structures ant to the development site compatible with the historic eksite or adjacent thereto." Department: Advance Planning Contact Clark Mapes, 970-221.6225, cmaaes((Wcaov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: Two of the policies cited in the application include interpretations that appear to be incomplete or inaccurate. This is a minor point, simply for the record and for dearer understanding: Policy LIV 6.1 emphasizes compatibility, and not expansion or redevelopment of under-utilized parcels as suggested. Policy LIV 7.4 calls for including residential use in many zoning districts, and not maximizing the potential of a subject property for housing as suggested. Department: Current Planning Contact Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, criaavCa)fcoov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The Planning and Zoning Board can not make a determinination of individual eligablility on the property in question. The Planning and Zoning Board can only grant approval of the modification request. At that point, you would submit your full Project Development Plan to be approved. Once approved, you would have to go back to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a final hearing on the demolition of the single family home on the subject property. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: Decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Board are appeable to City Council. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The modification of standard request is utilizing the second justification of. "the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fad 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; " While this project does provide multifamily housing (which is a policy outlined in City Plan), 30 - 50 units would not result in a substantial benefit nor would it substantially address this need. As stated above, this justification criteria emphasizes the word substantial. Department: Historical Preservation Contact Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliamsCa)fcaov.com Topic: General Department: Advance Planning Contact Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmaaesCa)fcaov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: Regarding the use of 2.8.2(H)(2) to justify the request: Advance Planning staff finds that removal of the eligible house would impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. The community need for housing, and student housing in particular, appears to be the main rationale in the list of City Plan and West Central Neighborhoods Plan policies. The need for additional student -oriented housing could arly be met in a redevelopment plan that preserves the eligible house for student hiiusinglt ay or may not be possible to add as many new units as would a plan that removes the house. The answer to this is part of the reason it is important to start with preparation of a plan that meets the applicable standards. But assuming that it is not possible, then the key question appears to be whether the difference in units would substantially address the need for student housing. The difference in units appears to be insubstantial in addressing the community need for student housing. The replacement of the house with new multi -family buildings, when it appears possible to integrate the house into a development plan, appears to be detrimental to the public good in Advance Planning staffIs opinion. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: Regarding City Plan policies cited in the application: Missing are any Historic Preservation policies. Principle LIV-16 and Policies 16.3-16.6 directly address the issue in question but are not included in the application. Policy 16.6 is perhaps the most directly applicable of all policies in City Plan: Integrate Historic Structures Explore opportunities to incorporate existing structures of historic value into new development and redevelopment activities.' This policy acknowledges the context of redevelopment, but calls for exploration of ways to ALSO integrate historic preservation. Principle LIV 17 and Policies LIV 17.1-17.3 are perhaps the next -most directly applicable of all policies in City Plan to the issue in question: 'Historically and architecturally significant buildings Downtown and throughout the community will be valued and preserved.' These principles and policies are crucial as the basis for standards in 3.4.7 which are the subject of the Modification request All of the other policies cited in the application could be consistent with a redevelopment plan that integrates the eligible house. y of Wtins January 18, 2012 Charles Bailey Catamount Properties 7302 Rozena Dr Longmont, CO 80503 FILE COPY RE: Carriage House Apartments (1305 S. Shields St.), MOD120001, Round Number 1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. corWdevelopmentreview Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or crippy@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmaaes(a)fcaov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The proposed plan does not reflect any attempt to creatively incorporate the eligible house into a plan. A critical first step in evaluating the Modification request should be to prepare a plan that meets the applicable standards as a starting point. This is typical in modification requests involving choices about site layout such as in this situation. Clearly, it would be possible to add more residential units onto the subject property without demolishing the subject house. A plan that incorporates this small bit of heritage would lend neighborhood compatibility and uniqueness to the project, consistent with Land Use Code standards. In the past, developers have benefitted by meeting collaboratively with staff to explore site planning possibilities. But in any case, such a plan (or plan altematives) should be prepared, and can then be evaluated by all parties.