HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - REPORTS - MODIFICATION REQUEST(4) has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or
history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever.
The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not possess Exterior Integrity since the
property does not have the ability to convey any significance as defined under Section 14-1 of
the Municipal Code. The property has no ability to convey significance for failure to meet the
standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code.
The record does establishes that the property lacks Significance and lacks Exterior Integrity.
4
district with the stated policy of encouraging stable residential and commercial environments
which as the appropriate integration of residential student housing approximate to Colorado State
University commercial use and related services. The property is located in the Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) zoning which is a transition zone between residential
neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -use areas or high traffic zones. The proposed
project is consistent with the zone district requirements and multifamily dwellings are a
permitted use.
The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not meet any of the standards for
designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 in that that property:
(1).is-not associated with events .that have made a significant contribution to broad
patterns of history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and,
(2) is not associated with the lives of a person significant in history. Mr. William Carlson
resided in 1305 South Shields while growing up and completing his undergraduate degree. He
moved out of the subject home in June of 1950 upon receiving his undergraduate degree (when
he was married at the age of 21) never to live there again. During the 1960's and up to 1968,
William & Bev Carlson lived at 1301 S. Shields Street after buying that home from his
grandmother. . None of the accomplishments listed as important achievements in Mr. Carlson's
life such as earning a Ph.D. in radiation biology from Colorado University Medical Center
(Denver) or practicing as a veterinarian in Littleton or even chairing the Colorado State
University veterinarian school radiology department occurred while living at 1305 S. Shields
Street. Mr. Carlson moved from Fort Collins in 1968 and did not return to Fort Collins or
Colorado to live or work after 1968. While Mr. Carlson is accomplished, we find that his life is
not significant in history or significant to Fort Collins history such that it warrants a finding that
the property meets this standard for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Such a finding is
contrary to wishes of the applicant and Mrs. Beverly Carlson, the property owner and widow of
Mr. Carlson. Any such designation would be without the consent of the property owner and does
not reflect a delicate balance of community values in this instance; and,
(3) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represent the work of a master, or posse high artistic values or represent a
significant and distinguishable entity with components that lack individual distinction. The
record demonstrates clearly (i) significant alterations and additions to the property with
incompatible design, materials and workmanship, (ii) an unknown builder and architect, and, (iii)
conveys significant weaknesses of design; the property is not a good example of either Cape Cod
or Tudor Revival, and the combination of two styles does not create a successful eclectic design
or significant and distinguishable entity. The design actually creates confusion as evident by the
fact that when the property was determined individually eligible, the director and chair of the
Landmark Preservation Commission concluded that the property was an example of Cape Cod
architecture. The record now contains evidence that the property is characterized as a house with
Tudor Revival influences in_a-report submitted by neighbors.in opposition to.the in-fill.proposal
which as submitted is in compliance with all zone district standards and that advances specific
City policies; and,
3
2. Demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and
further advances the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2 by: (i)
fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure,
and other public facilities and services (subsection C; and, TOD overlay district policy); (ii)
encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel through in -fill
development approximate to Colorado State University and student services (subsection F;.and,
TOD overlay district policy of encouraging stable and attractive residential and commercial
environments within TOD overlay district); (iii) increasing public access to mass transit,
sidewalks, trials bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation .through in -fill
development approximate to the Mason Street Corridor, City Transit Center, Colorado State
University sidewalk infrastructure and established bicycle routes in the WCNP area (subsection
H; and, TOD overlay district. policy); (iv) fostering a more rational relationship among
residential and business uses for the mutual benefit of all through in -fill development
approximate to established student services (subsection K; and, TOD overlay district policy); (v)
encouraging development of vacant properties within established areas (subsection L; and
WCNP); and, (vi) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods (subsection M; and, N-C-B zone district compliance).
3. Demolition substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of
city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs through
advancing the intent and .purpose of the Land Use Code, alleviating. pressure on enforcement and
violations of the "3-unrelated" law, and addressing the concerns identified in the Student
Housing Action Plan. A strict application of the standard for the preservation and adaptive use of
a property that lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance For failing .to _meet any one (1) of
the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code (or in the
alternative has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it
may have been significant), renders the project practically infeasible when .balanced against the
expressly stated goals of the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the TOD overlay zone
district.and the N-C-B zone district.
GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT
(Proposed by Applicant)
1305 South Shields lacks Exterior Integrity and fails to meet any one (1) of the standards for
designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code.
1305 South Shields has undergone three substantial additions such that the property does not
convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car garage that is not
compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the exterior integrity of the structure.
The garage has doubled the size of the property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with
little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical and aesthetic
characteristics weakened.and damaged -to the extent.that.any sense of identity and heritage is lost.
The property is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan
(WCNP). The property is located in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone
CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS
SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
(Proposed by Applicant)
As supported by evidence submitted .at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the applicant
submits the following findings of fact:
Modification 2.8.2(H)(2) — Substantially Alleviate City -Wide Concern and Address Adopted
Policies
A. The granting of modifications to the General Development Standard Section 3.4.7(B).and
to Section 3.4.7 (E) as stand alone modifications to allow demolition of 1305 South Shields are
requested by the applicant and the property owner meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2)
as supported by the following specific findings:
1. Demolition of 1305 South Shields is not detrimental to the public good because
the property lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for Landmark designation. To be
designated as a Landmark, a property must not only be shown to be Significant, but must also
have Exterior Integrity. 1305 South Shields has neither Exterior Integrity nor Significance. The
Property does not possess the requisite degree of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define
Exterior Integrity. The property has undergone three substantial additions such that the property
does not retain or convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car
garage that is not compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the Exterior Integrity
of the structure. The garage has doubled.the.size ofthe property by the addition of very
utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical
and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and
heritage is lost.
The Property lacks the requisite Significance in that it fails to meet any one (1) or more of the
standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. We find in the
alternative that 1305 Shields would still lack Significance even if the record had demonstrated
that the property had met one (1) or more of the standards for Landmark designation under
Section 14-5, since the composite of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior
Integrity are of insufficient degree such that 1305 South Shields has no ability to convey any
Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant.
The property is designated.as.a redevelopment. parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan
(WCNP) and is located in the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District. The
proposed plan is designed in full compliance with zone district standards articulated in the NC-
B zone district and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. When balancedagainst the
community values expressly stated in the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the N-C-B zone
district, the TOD overlay zone district, and the express intent and fiscal objectives of the
property owner, and for the _reasons stated above, we find that the requested modification of
standard and demolition of the property is not detrimental to the public good.
1