Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGLand Use Code Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request 2.8.2(H) Is there no detriment to the public good? See Municipal Code Sec. 14-2: Mandatory Historic preservation — Declaration of Policy Criteria (a) It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and Perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the Prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. (b) It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical architectural and geographical heritage of the city and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. We conclude: Granting of the modification requests that will allow demolition of an individually eligible historic structure is contrary to public policy adopted for the public good. The applicant has not met this mandatory criterion for approval of his request. In the face of all this, we cant see how the PZB can approve this, and I think you very much for your time and your diligent work on behalf of our city. Land Use Code Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request AND thirdly The applicant did not present alternative development plans that would preserve and incorporate the structure at either of the two LPC hearings, nor did he present any such plan with this modification request. He simply states that the structure is not worth saving, that his chosen plan Does strict application of the standard requires demolition, and that his contract requires him to purchase the whole property. We render project practically infeasible? encourage the owner to take advantage of incentives to rehabilitate the structure, rearrange or downsize buildings, reduce the number of buildings; put the site to different use; any number of alternatives. Bear in mind, the adjacent property immediately to the south was developed seven years ago, profitably, with modest and compatible single-family bungalows. Feasible options do exist. We recall another student housing project that was before the Board recently called The Grove. Although not dealing with an historic structure, that developer had to redesign and change a number of things about the project — at the direction of this Board — in order to come up with a plan that balanced all of the competing City objectives. That's got to be possible here as well. Certainly, if the neighbors as lay persons without much understanding of the technical aspects of land use planning can envision scenarios in which the structure might be preserved in an alternate development plan, the applicant's professional consultant team would be able to explore options that might achieve the historic preservation objectives or at least balance those objectives with other modifications of less significant Land Use Code requirements. We do not think that he has made any real effort on this yet, nor do we do think he has met his burden of proof that the project would be practically infeasible if the structure remained. Concluding this discussion of section 2, the applicant has not proven compliance with any of the mandatory elements herein. Nor has he overcome the weight and importance of the balancing city policies in favor of historic and neighborhood preservation. Finally, the applicant still has to prove that he has met the mandatory criteria: Land Use Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request Code Land Use Code Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request AND secondly, The applicant focuses on policies of City Plan and statements from the West Central Neighborhoods Plan in support of his project. But in comparison to other student housing projects and the overall need, 50 new units, actually 47 new units; there are already people living - Does the modification substantially on this site; would not make a "substantial" difference, and it certainly would have to make a very alleviate a defined City need, or substantial difference to justify demolition in the face of all of the policy statements relating to - Result in substantial benefit to City historic preservation and neighborhood character. by substantially addressing an important community need, See, for example, the WCNP Section LU5, which cites the "character of specifically and express defined in individual neighborhoods and the area as a whole, including historic characteristics," or LU7, City Plan? which seeks to "Insure that high density infill development is sensitive to existing neighborhoods". LU16, LU18, LU19, VC1, VC4, HO1, HO7, HO19, 67, E1, G9, L1, L2, L4, G, H and others all mention historic preservation, A final quote from the WCNP is especially relevant here. This is from a section of the plan discussing neighborhood challenges: "Financial incentives to create and overload rental housing are another facet of the problem. Under such circumstances, the historic cohesion that previously existed in neighborhoods has often evaporated, leaving long-time owner residents with the option of adjusting to less stable living conditions or leaving the neighborhood. As these trends progress, some of the area's neighborhoods are threatened with instability and decline. Unless this problem can be satisfactorily resolved, it will be extremely difficult to enhance, or even sustain, a sense of community in some of the area's neighborhoods." We are here to reinforce this sentiment. Land Use Code Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request 2.8.2(H)(2) Alternative First: is there no impairment of intent and purpose of Land Use Code? We claim there is impairment: In addition to being contrary to the public good and the intent and purpose of Land Use Code Sec. 3.4.7 for one, and this request impairs sec 1.2.2 as well: Criteria #2 "The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code City Plan and its adopted components including but not limited to the Structure Plan Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans. "(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods." It's also inconsistent with numerous provisions of City Plan and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The City Plan, for example, explicitly calls for the "preservation and enhancement of historic structures" in its "Community and Neighborhood Livability Vision". Neither would demolition be sensitive to the character of our neighborhood. I could quote from the WCNP ad nauseum here: our neighborhood is characterized with "existing housing and single-family homes... small versus large structures... mixed -use housing as a component of redevelopment near the Campus West Shopping area... distribution of student housing in other appropriate locations throughout FC to help avoid over -concentrations of short-term residents that have tended to destabilize certain West Central neighborhoods... encourage re -use versus demolition of existing buildings for redevelopment... adequate parking is critical..." Therefore, the applicant cannot meet this mandatory requirement of this alternative criterion. Land Use Code Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request 2.8.2(H)(4) Asks: Is the The applicant doesn't rely on this, but demolition of a historical property is not a nominal divergence from a standard that Alternative divergence from Land requires its preservation and integration into the development — it is effectively a complete waiver of the standard. Criteria Use Code standards Neither could demolition be called inconsequential: Several neighbors testified at the last LPC hearing about the historic #4 nominal and significance of this property to us personally and, in addition, we have the City's stated policy about the importance of inconsequential? preserving historic resources. AND Does the development Furthermore, demolition of 1305 does not advance the Land use code's provisions regarding historical preservation We plan continue to conclude the applicant's modification request, conversely, has consequences contrary to the land use code, and advance purposes of therefore, criteria #4 does not apply. pp y Land Use Code? Furthermore, the destruction of the historic property to allow a student housing project without any adjustments to the development plan does not advance the general purposes of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the Land use Code provisions regarding historic and cultural resources or the City's stated public policy regarding historic preservation. We conclude that not requiring compliance of a Land Use Code development review criteria designed to protect historic resources has huge consequences contrary to the Land Use Code. The applicant cannot meet this alternative criterion for approval of his request. ne dpput;anr iocuses on untenon ec to tusnry ine moomcanon. i ms nas several parts: Land Use Criteria/Required Finding Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request Code On behalf of the neighbors, I'll spend the next few minutes talking through the specific criteria required for a modification, and why we believe the applicant has failed to comply. There are four alternate justifications for approving a modification request, and there's also a mandatory criteria with which all requests must comply. This applicant did not use Criteria #1, #3 or #4, but I'll start by going through each of those briefly. Land Use Criteria/Required Analysis of Carriage House Modification Request Code Finding 2.8.2(H)(1) Does the plan with the The applicant does not rely on this review criterion, but we think it's important to consider: Alternative modification promote Criteria the purpose the standard equally well The purpose of Sec. 3.4.7 — Historic and Cultural Resources — is: #1 or better than a plan (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or without a modification? objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; 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. You've heard about 3.4.7 already today; it articulates the importance of preserving historic sites "to the maximum extent possible'. Demolishing 1305 will not promote this. Criterion #1, is not met. 2.8.2(H)(3) Asks: are there This criterion doesn't really apply at all. Alternative exceptional and unique physical conditions of Criteria the property that result #3 in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner? PART 1A - HISTORY Our reading of the Municipal Code and Land Use Code tells us that the City places a very high value on historic structures and that if someone wants to develop a property that contains an historic structure or one that is eligible for historic designation, the developer must attempt to preserve the structure and integrate it into the development plan. We think it is important to review the history of the applicant's dealings with the City so that you have a clear picture of his objectives. -The applicant elected several months ago to pursue demolition of all of the structures on the properties through the Demolition Alteration Review Process in the Municipal Code, because he believes that none of the buildings have any historical significance. -The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chair made three (3) separate determinations (September, November and December, 2011) that the house at 1305 S. Shields is eligible for historic designation. -The applicant was afforded two opportunities, at two separate preliminary hearings (November 9 and December 14, 2011) to explore alternatives to substantially preserve the house, but at both hearings, he chose instead to argue against the eligibility determination. He did not make any explanation of what he had tried to do to comply. -Since no solution was found for preservation or integration of the house (because none was offered), the next step in the Demolition Alteration Review Process was for the applicant to submit all of the required documentation and then schedule a final hearing. One of the required submittal items is an approved development plan. To my knowledge, No development plan has been submitted to date. - Since the review process for a development plan would require compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, the applicant tried to get the LPC, during the December 14th preliminary hearing, to move from the Demolition Alteration Review Process to a different process under the Municipal Code, the Landmark Designation Process. Historical designation was clearly contrary to the applicant's position that the house is not eligible. He asked the LPC to designate the house as an historic structure without having complied with any of the procedural requirements of that process. Escape from the Demolition Alteration Review Process and the development review requirements by requesting a decision from the LPC on historical designation would have allowed an immediate appeal of the decision to the City Council. The LPC properly refused to allow this. -The applicant's options were clear: design a development that preserves and incorporates the house OR prove that he cannot after attempting to do so "to the maximum extent feasible". Mr. Bailey has done neither. He has instead chosen to ask for a modification that would excuse him from such efforts.