Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 34 accomplished by the 3 lane with median option. He thinks with all things considered, he's going to sport a signalized intersection at this time. 'd Membels,Kirkpatrick thanked staff for the late night/early morning attendance after what she k s was a busy day t t started at 7 a.m. As a transportation planner herself, she definitely respects aff recommends . Kirkpatrick said when you consider the community health componegonshehassome e's heard community mem s who say that round-abouts pose a barrier for them. For that re significant reservatio about the round -about in this area. When she looks throu he alternatives analysis; she has a ha, r 'me justifying spending so much more for a facility tha o her does not seem to promote a "stronger sense lace". She agrees with Chair Smith that other esign elements may accomplish the gateways and ffic calming objectives. She said for the r sons she's listed, she would be inclined to support the more trb<itional intersection. Member Stockover said it just boils qowhqo that it's a pretty long etch and if you're looking at speed they are going to speed up right after the ro d-about. He also id with the landscaping being proposed, there will be too much going on for cars, truck eople and bikes. It is a truck route. He doesn't think we can justify spending that kind of oney a gateway when we already have a thriving community. Stockover also thinks the parking gain there isn't as big as we think it is. He'd recommend a parking structure. The money saved that design element could be redirected to a parking structure and would keep four -lanes so y have a movement both ways. He thinks it'll be restricted too much especially after a train pas s or when th close roads to Laramie or Cheyenne and all the trucks that have been stopped will co a all at once. He es not think we need what's proposed to accomplish the goals set out for this pr ect. Member Campania made a motioplfo recommend a signalized inters-Iction in lieu of the traffic circle (aka round -about). MenXer Stockover seconded the motion. Chair Smith said he's deft ' ely a fan of round-abouts and he'd like to a proliferatio of them throughout town in the appropriate aces. He loves the gateway feature but we'll see the train t cks there. Had it been pretty close o e analysis he did, he would have probably said yes to the round- out. But it was pretty overwhelm' g in favor of a standardized intersection. Member Ca pana said he likes the round -about idea as well. He just doesn't like the idea of a Nck route ano round -about in the same place. was approved 6:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Laurie Kadrich, Interim CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair IT'i Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 28 separating this completely from a development plan so that we don't really have a way to know. We're being asked to take down this historic structure with what looks like kind of a nice plan but we don't have any plan. Chair Smith said he agrees with her to a certain degree but in this case, it is about substantial. That's the qualifier in the statement. We can grant the request to modify the standard if it meets the first criteria — not detrimental to the public good but we'd also have to make the finding that it's substantially addressing a community need. Eckman said Levingston has addressed that on Page 9 of the staff report. He and she consulted on the definition of substantial. The one that seemed the most appropriate one was considerable in amount, value or worth. It's up to the Board to decide if that's a considerable amount. Chair Smith said the number of bedrooms is one factor for him. Is it substantial compared to similar projects? Member Schmidt said she can appreciate Mr. Bailey's comments about the financial incentives the project creates with improvements to the property, and which he considers is a substantial asset to the city. She would say this amount of housing may not be substantial by a lot of people. She thinks CSU is trying to meet the housing needs by adding 200 beds per year —if that is not substantial as referenced by Mr. Brobst than probably these aren't either. She thinks something could be designed to keep the house. It could be a manager's residence or the rental office so it's possible to somehow create a win - win situation. Member Schmidt asked Preservation Planner McWilliams if there had to be any specific guidelines such as so much distance from a house, etc. Is there anything that would impair a project of any kind of scope happening here? McWilliams said no, they work with each developer --look at their program and the particular property. The house could be connected to a unit, it could be repurposed for use for a caretaker, or turned into the mail box/community center for an area. Chair Smith asked for any other comments. Member Campana said an observation he had tonight is there seem to be some new information that the applicant came up with regards to the home and maybe this isn't the right venue to present it. Maybe you can bring that new evidence back to the LPC. It's just very difficult for us to sit here and assess that, when they're the experts. For the Board to sit here and second guess them at this point is too difficult to do. He thinks there are alternative designs that can be taken into consideration. He knows we're not looking at a design but we kind of have to look at it to justify it. He said he won't be supporting the motion to modify the standard tonight. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) based on the fact that it is detrimental to the public good. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board deny the modification request to LUC Section 3.4.7(E) based on the fact that it is detrimental to the public good. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 27 Chair Smith asked staff to comment on public testimony and the applicant's response to that public testimony. Levingston said in terms of the proposed other plans (Oz Architecture) that would preserve the structure; they were never seen by staff. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said whether it complied or not is not what is before the Board. We're here to decide whether a modification should be granted not whether a plan would comply with the standard. Ms. Levingston has given you a good analysis of the way that staff feels about the question before the Board. Mr. Bailey has given you a good analysis of the way he feels in the document called Carriage House Apartments Specific Findings for Modification of Standards. He said as the Board knows they need to decide if it's detrimental to the public good. Then you have to decide if the plan alleviates an existing defined problem or addresses and benefits an important community need. In doing so, it does not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. Eckman said if you decide it's detrimental to the public good you can stop there. If not, you can go on to decide if you think this student housing project is an important enough community need to trump the historic preservation criteria for which that the modification is being requested. Board Discussion Member Schmidt asked if it is correct that the modification is being requested because the requirement that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply have been undertaken. Is he saying that has not happened and that is what they're asking the modification for? Chair Smith said on page 8 of the staff report sums up the argument. This gets to what our purview is. We're taking it as being an eligible property and that regardless of that he's asking for a modification of a standard that is not detrimental to the public good and that proposed project substantially benefits the city by reason of the fact that it substantially addresses important community needs that are specifically and expressly described as policy considerations in the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) all as directly applicable to the project site. He said that's the core of this issue. We're not discussing whether the property is eligible or not. If it is, is it okay to demolish it because it's not detrimental to the public good and the project would substantially benefit the city? Member Schmidt said we're presuming that because there is no alternative and all possible efforts have been taken. The applicant is saying it's not possible to design a plan incorporating the house; therefore, they are asking for the modification. If we agree with the modification, we agree with it based on that criteria. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the Board does not have a plan to look at so you have no idea if they've taken all feasible efforts to comply. We are not measuring compliance with the standard. He thinks the request is that its not detrimental to the public good, student housing trumps historic preservation, and it doesn't impair and intent of purpose of the LUC. Chair Smith said to be able to consider whether or not it's feasible, we'd at least have to see a plan. We don't' even know how many units there are, so for the Board to be able to consider feasibility is a moot point. Member Carpenter said that is her concern. She thinks they all agree that we need student housing but she thinks what they're being asked to do here tonight (twice) is to stay that student housing is more important than historic preservation. What we're saying is we can't get student housing and keep our historic properties. She doesn't believe that's true. She also thinks when you look at 3.4.7; everything ties back to a proposed development, a proposed plan and we'd be making a precedent here of Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 26 process. Rather than complete the process with the LPC, he's jumped to another process and has tried to reargue his case before this Board. He urges the Board to uphold the LPC's decision and the recommendation of staff and to deny this modification request. Doug Brobst lives at 1625 Independence Road and said he is a strong advocate for student housing and as such has served as a stakeholder on SHAP (Student Housing Action Plan). He's not necessarily going to support every project but he thinks we need to look at each project on their merits. He said it is interesting to him that the city is rejecting Mr. Bailey's proposal because it's not large enough. He said the basic problem we have is we need student housing but CSU is either unable or unwilling to keep up with student housing needs. He said he's not saying he's willing to support the two proposals that have come before the Board this evening but what was obvious to him was the city was rejecting them on grounds that make them economically feasible for a developer. He said CSU is not willing to keep up with housing needs so it's going to be up to private developers to fill that void. We have to make sure the City is making it feasible for developers to follow through with projects. He thinks that keeping the house at 1305 S. Shields is going to make this very well located property undevelopable in the future. He urged the Board to allow the request for this project to move forward and be judged on its merits or lack thereof. End of Public Input Chair Smith asked the applicant for his response. Mr. Bailey said the modification of standards is a part of the city process. The concept that he is subverting the city process is absurd. It's a component of Section 2.8. They are asking the Board to look at this modification to 3.4.7 (B) and (E). The issue they have is a bit of a chicken and egg. They do not own the property so how do they spend $100,000 and come back in a situation similar to other topic heard this evening. He said we have to get this out front and we have to find out if this is a show stopper or not. That's the entire purpose of tonight's hearing. Bailey said on page 2, paragraph 2 of the Specific Findings for Modification of Standards document that has been submitted, it states, "Demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the LUC ... by (i) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure... including the TOD overlay district... That is the reason they are seeking this modification. They hope to submit a plan before this Board and the plan they are contemplating adheres to the LUC. He said Springfield will become the new front. They can't build in the back half of this property and they are building smaller buildings to comply with LUC/NCB Zoning District and the West Central Neighborhood Plan. He said if you say just build around; that becomes a single building. That's not something the Board will want to see and approve next to a single family neighborhood and that is not something he wants to take to the market. That is why to the greatest extent possible the LUC is dictating this plan. Bailey said this property is not eligible for the National Register per the Historitecture consultant's Architectural Inventory Form. He said if it's not a national landmark than it's also not a state landmark. He doesn't understand why it's eligible for a local landmark designation. For that reason, they argue that is does comply (is illegible). He asks is this project important to the city? He said you've heard from Bev Carlson, she is not in favor of this being designated a historic landmark. Mike Oldham lives at 16131 W. Ellsworth Avenue in Golden and he said he is part of the applicant's team. He wants to set the record straight on a couple of things. First, that there was no effort made to try to incorporate this house into the plan. That is not true. Chuck hired Oz Architecture to do a land plan and they looked extensively at how to leave the house there and build around it. It turned out not to be feasible unless you build a tower or a much larger structure. It didn't make sense. Oldham said his interest is a small time local guy investor. He said it's a great thing for the community and he thinks this project can be the same. He thinks it would be short sighted not to make this change and move forward with the project. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 25 years ago with very modest, compatible single-family homes —the Bungalows in which many of those present tonight reside. Taylor recalled another student housing project before the Board, the Grove. It did not deal with a historic structure but that developer had to redesign and change a number of things in order to come up with a plan that balanced all the competing objectives. He has to believe that's possible here. Concluding Criterion 2, they believe the applicant has not shown compliance with the mandatory elements of the LUC. Taylor said finally with respect to no detriment to the public good. They think there would be detriment to the public good citing Municipal Code Section 14-2 historic preservation declaration of policy, "...required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people." In light of his references, they don't understand how the Planning & Zoning Board can approve this request. He thanked them for their time and their diligent work on behalf of the community. Lauren Myracle lives at 1338 Bennett. She fully supports the positions of all those who are opposed to this project. She's a writer and every day she is surrounding by stories, culture and history. She understands that is important to us as people/as humans. She said it seems to her at its most basic level, is the importance of history. By preserving history we are remembering where we come from. It is our cultural DNA. Without it, we risk losing track of who we were, and who we can become —what we choose as a community to become. 1305 S. Shields plays a special role in that process especially if that house has morphed as Mr. Bailey implies. It's a microcosm of time and place —a living non -static historical record that cannot be replaced. She believes its demolition would change our town in a significant and irreversible way. She asked the Board to think hard about whether you're comfortable letting that happen. Andrew Bantham lives at 1214 Bennett. He said many of the issues have been covered. As the Board has heard from Mr. Taylor, he believes the applicant's request does not meet the necessary criteria for modification and should be rejected tonight on those grounds. He asks they consider, almost philosophically, what the applicant is asking the Board to do here tonight. Both the Municipal Code and the LUC regarding historic preservation are parts of how development works in Fort Collins. They are the embodiment of many important goals for the city. In this situation, rather than design a development that meets these requirements and complies with the LUC Section 3.4.7, the applicant has chosen to seek a complete waiver of those requirements through this modification process. The applicant appears to be doing everything he can to subvert the process and get around the requirements of the code. Bantham said in many ways that's what's been so frustrating to the neighbors. They have neighbors who have been very involved, have been trying to understand the issues, and have been involved in the process all along. How can they know the applicant has tried when they've not really seen a development plan? Bantham said the requirement is for the applicant to demonstrate that every effort has been made to preserve to the maximum extent feasible. They've not seen evidence of that. They've heard only financial references that state they must bulldoze this historic/eligible structure to make it work. He thinks it's fair to suggest the possibility that any development project that asks the city to waive entire portions of it's land use code is either a not terribly well thought out project or its' just not appropriate for that particular site. He urges the Board to consider what a bad precedent this would set if this type of modification were granted. Bantham indicated the number of neighbors who'd stuck around this late on a Thursday night. He said where people live and where they chose to raise their families is based on the character of the neighborhood. A huge part of the character is what can or cannot be built around them. People rely on the values embodied by the Land Use Code, the processes, and the procedures set up. It's disturbing to them that someone should be allowed to come into town and essentially avoid participating in the Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 24 minutes. Chair Smith said representatives of the neighborhood can be given a little more time. The Chair asked for a show of hands who would want a representative to speak for them. There were a number of people in the audience. Mr. Taylor said he'd like seven minutes, Andrew Banthum would like 10 minutes, and Lauren Myracle about 3-4 minutes. The rest are prepared to stand and say they agree. Chair Smith said that is reasonable. Chair Smith noted the merits of a development proposal of the project are not really relevant or germane. He would like to ask that they focus their comments to the request for a modification of that standard. He asked if the applicant had seen the handouts provided by Mr. Taylor. The applicant indicated yes. David Taylor discussed the specific criteria required for a modification and why they believe the applicant has failed to comply. He said there are four LUC alternative justifications for approving a modification request as well as a mandatory fifth criterion with which all request must comply. Taylor said Criterion 1 with regard to LUC 2.8.2(H) (1) does the plan with the modification promote the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan without a modification. LUC 3.4.7 articulates the importance of preserving historic sites to the maximum extent possible. They conclude Criterion 1 is not met. Criterion 3 — LUC 2.8.2(H) (3) asks are the exceptional and unique physical conditions of the property that result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner. He said Criterion 3 does not apply here. Criterion 4 — LUC 2.8.2(H)(4) asks is the divergence from LUC standards nominal and inconsequential and does the development plan continue to advance the purpose of the LUC. The applicant doesn't rely on Criterion 4 but the demolition of a historic property is not a nominal divergence from a standard that requires its preservation. It's a complete waiver of that standard. Neither may the demolition be called inconsequential. Several neighbors including him have testified at LPC about the historic significance of t he property to them personally. They conclude that Criterion 4 does not apply. Taylor said the applicant relies on Criterion 2 to justify the modification. First is the requirement for no impairment of intent and purpose of the LUC. They claim there is impairment to Section 3.4.7 and Section 1.2.2 which states it's sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhoods. He referred to objectives of the West Central Neighborhood Plan which includes distribution of student housing in other appropriate locations throughout Fort Collins to help avoid over concentrations of short-term residents that have tended to destabilize certain West Center neighborhoods. They conclude that Criterion 2 is not met. Secondly Taylor asked does the modification substantially alleviate a defined City need or result in substantial benefit to the City. The applicant focuses on policies of City Plan and statements from the West Central Neighborhood Plan in support of the project. There is some validity to that but in comparison to the other student housing projects and the overall need, 50 new units would not make a substantial difference. They believe it would have to make a very substantial difference to justify demolition. Thirdly Taylor asks does strict application of the standard render the project practically infeasible. The applicant did not present alternative development plans. He states the structure is not worth saving and that the chosen plan requires demolition. We live in a city where we're proud of our historic structures. They encourage the owner to take advantage of incentives to rehabilitate the structure, rearrange buildings, downsize buildings, reduce the number of buildings, or put the site to a different use entirely. They believe there are any number of alternatives. He said the adjacent property was developed a few Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 23 locations neighbors don't like living next to college students. He said we stay up late; we're loud —play loud music and drink beer —that's what college is. Having a place like Carriage House will draw people out of society and clump them by campus instead of disbursing them throughout Fort Collins. He thinks it makes for a better experience for people attending CSU. Mick Mertz lives at 517 S. Whitcomb. He's a senior marketing student who transferred from UNC. He thinks the biggest problem is there aren't many nice housing developments near campus. He lives at Horsetooth and Shields (the Seasons) and that was the nicest place at that time. Other nice places have waiting lists so the alternative is to commute to school. The Carriage House would be a great opportunity for students who like himself want a little bit nicer housing close to campus. He thinks Carriage House, Pura Vida and the Flats, and new construction on campus will attract a lot of new students and it will only help the community. Greg Douras lives at 1205 Springfield. He's a CSU graduate student. He would like the Board to support the staff recommendation to deny this project for the following reasons. The site that would be demolished doesn't appear to infringe on the proposed buildings that much. He thinks the site could be designed so that building could be preserved. The neighborhood does not have three story buildings and no multi -family housing. Both Bennett Drive and Springfield Drive are single family houses back to City Park Drive. His third point is the project in its' current state seems not feasible. There's not enough parking for the number of proposed beds and there seems to be a lack of "concrete" plans at this point since there's no site to develop as the developer himself stated. Finally there has been no alternative for the single family sites as in the previous case (Remington Annex). There was a discussion of developing each lot individually and not clumping them into a multiple lot development. He thinks for all the reasons stated, the project should be denied. Chair Smith noted we are not looking at a development proposal tonight. The Board is not looking at what it's going to be, it's a stand-alone request to modify one of the standards relating to the demolition of an eligible local designated landmark. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he wanted to note that Fort Collins does not yet have a Student Housing Action Plan. City Council did have a work session two nights ago but it's pretty preliminary. He said the applicant did speak to that as if it were similar to City Plan or a neighborhood plan. It's not there yet. Sandy Quackenbush lives at 1308 Bennett. She would be a neighbor of the proposed project. She wants to thank the Board for allowing her to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. Her reading of the Municipal and Land Use Codes tells her the city places a high value on historic structures and if someone who wants to develop the property that contains a 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. They think it is important to review the applicant's dealings with the city so the Board will have a clear picture of his objectives. She outlined the chronology of what she knows to be that interaction. He believes that none of the buildings have historic significance. He has not provided information on what he tried to do to comply with the preservation of the structure and to her knowledge he has not submitted a final development plan to the LPC. Joel Rounak lives at 1308 Bennett. He believes, like Ms. Quackenbush that the applicant's requirements were clear. Mr. Bailey has not designed a development that incorporates and preserves the house or proven that he cannot after attempting to do so to the maximum extent feasible. He has instead chosen to ask for a modification which would excuse him from such efforts. David Taylor, 1302 Bennett, said they have 12 neighbors left and from here forward would like to pool their time. They're not going to take the full time but a couple would like to speak longer than three Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 22 Member Schmidt said her only comment would be since they received the information so late; they haven't really looked at them. She can say that she would not be using the information in any way this evening. Chair Smith asked that Eckman repeat the Board's options at this point. Eckman said they obligation is to receive all relevant evidence that is offered to you in support of the applicant's or any opponents' position. The question the Board is trying to decide is if it is relevant. It sounds like the view is it's not relevant so if you think it's not relevant you can still keep it in the record. If there's an appeal to City Council, it will go to them but he would advise them if you think it is not relevant; then you shouldn't think about it —simply set it aside and don't use it in your thought process. Chair Smith asked if that is something the Chair needs to decide or does the entire Board. Eckman said he doesn't think you need to vote on it. You can just follow his direction not to think about it if you determine that it is not relevant. You may want to vote on relevancy just to decide whether to strike it or not from the record. Member Campana said he thinks they can just move forward and not think about it. Chair Smith said it is not relevant to whether or not the property is eligible. Because that is not in the Board's purview the material they received late, are not for the Board's consideration. He recommends the Board put it aside and focus on the evidence they have that they can consider. He asked if anyone disagreed. Member Campana said if they did appeal to City Council, it is in their purview to look at that data and make a decision from there. Let's leave it in the record. Chair Smith asked if staff had any comments. Preservation Planner McWilliams said the only comment she had was whether it was a Cape Code, Tudor, or some variation of that has apparently cause a great deal of angst. You can "lay the blame" for it being called a Cape Code squarely with her. The building could more likely be called Eclectic, or Tudor with Cape Code elements. It's label is really a moot point — its not the issue before the Board. Chair Smith said the Board will move forward with the fact that 1305 S. Shields is eligible. That is for the LPC and CDNS Director or City Council to consider. He said in the interest of time/public input do not speak to architecture or eligibility in your remarks. Public Input Patrick Sandvig, 516 9`h Street, said he was speaking on behalf of students who need more student housing near campus. He's a second generation CSU student. As the years have gone on, it's harder to find housing. By January you need to make decision on who your roommate will be when people don't even know if they're coming back. He thinks it would be beneficial to have more housing near campus. Reggie Anderson lives at 1300 Skyline Drive. He agrees with Pat. He'd also like to make it known that just the proximity to campus would cut out a lot of issues such as the need for parking passes. Even with a pass, you can't be assured of a space. 60 or 70 students would lose the daily commute and would reduce traffic. He knows that Mr. Bailey is very passionate about what he does. It's not going to be some mediocre place. It will be a very nice, conveniently located place. He said he thinks it's a benefit to the city —not a drawback. Ben Deline lives at 609 City Park Avenue. He's pretty close to campus and he can walk or ride his bike. One of his roommates used to live at Harmony and Shields —it took him 15 minutes to get to class because he couldn't find parking near campus. He said his girlfriend lives at 2525 Lake Street. In both Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 21 City staff member Levingston said staff believes the granting of these modifications would impair the intent of the section because it is feasible for the applicant to develop the land while preserving the individually eligible property. Levingston said if you read the code citations on page 8 of the staff report - 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, 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. Levingston said while the project does provide multi -family in close proximity to CSU campus; staff does not consider 30-50 units substantial when compared to the community at large. Substantial is mentioned about 3 times in that justification. When compared with other projects such as the Grove, Choice Center, and Presidio Apartments with 240, 218 and 219 units; they don't feel this project meets the substantial descriptor in the modification criteria and are recommending denial. Chair Smith asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman about the purview in essentially overturning a historic preservation determination. Eckman said with respect to the last application, the question of eligibility or demolition is decided by the LPC or the Planning Director and Chair of the LPC. It is not this Board. Eckman said you have received documents: Rogue Architecture and Gebau, Consulting Structural Engineers, OZ Architecture — Urban Design/Interior Design. There has been some objection to the relevance of these documents. Andrew Banthum, a neighbor, said he apologized to his objection but he needed to do that the moment those documents were referenced. They are not appropriate to the issues, being considered by the Board tonight. They should not be a part of the record and he'd like to make a formal motion that they be stricken/not considered by the Board. Eckman asked about the Oz document. Banthum said while it was not new —it was used by the LPC - it is not relevant to what is being considered tonight. Eckman noted the Oz document was not received by the Board. Eckman said unfortunately, the Board received an email from staff today containing the Rogue Architecture and Gebau documents. Technically, they're already in the record. Eckman said there are two choices —you could decide if it's relevant (keep it in the record). The applicant might want to explain why it's relevant to the discussion tonight. Or if not relevant, you could vote in a motion to strike it from the record. Or you could simply agree it is not going to be considered in your deliberation. Eckman said at this point it might be relevant for the applicant to explain how these documents which seem to go to the question of eligibility are relevant to the Board's consideration. Chair Smith agreed. Applicant Bailey said according to step 7 of the conduct of public hearing, subsection b—rights of all persons; any person may appear at a public hearing and submit evidence. The fact of relevancy of these documents is that they are not asking for a declaration that the home is not eligible. These are just supporting documents for the presentation ("slide show'). There are no recent revelations —the information was used in November and December by the LPC. They are not asking that their decisions hinge on the Gebau and Rogue reports. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 20 Bailey's presentation outlined which City Plan and West Central Neighborhood Plan attributes they will be addressing. He presented a graph that showed people per acre within a six blocks of campus (excluding on campus housing) for CSU and six like university communities. Comparatively he believes there is not a lot of density around CSU. The average number of people per acre is: 13.5 for CSU, 21.8 for CU, and 17.7 for UNC. He said it's going to take a concerted effort to provide the 1500 beds per year that the Student Housing Action Plan says CSU needs. He said this is where we can address student housing. Bailey said he does not think this project is detrimental to the public good nor will it impair the intent & purpose of the LUC. He believes it will substantially address important community needs described in the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted policies. He believes strict application would render the project practically infeasible. Member Schmidt asked why he stated he was losing 40% of the land area. Bailey said they would lose 2 out of the 5 buildings. Schmidt asked why exactly they'd be losing them. Bailey said if the Board stands on the issue that this house is worthy of preservation, they can't build 2 of the 5 buildings on the site. The house takes up that much of the site plan. Schmidt asked if that was because there's a certain distance around a historically designated home that needs to be preserved. Bailey said per fire department regulations you can't build within 30 feet. They clearly cannot build only 30 units —it's "cutting off our nose to spite our face". He said the social problems of managing student housing takes a certain level of critical mass. He spoke of the benefits of increased taxes to the school district. He said it's on the bus route and its pedestrian oriented. He said they are not the problem, they are the solution. Bev Carlson, owner of the property at 1305 S. Shields, said she does not agree with the eligibility nor does she accept a local landmark designation. She said it is not a conceivable thing to do. She has a contract on the property which will be in jeopardy if this is continued. She doesn't believe 1305 S. Shields is a proper place for historical designation. She outlined some of the exterior renovations and why she believed it lacked historic designation. She asked the Board to consider what they're requesting and she hopes the decision is a good one. Bailey submitted the following documents for the Board's consideration: Specific Findings for Modification of Standards, a letter dated February 15, 2012 from Gebau, Consulting Structural Engineers, and a Rogue Architecture Report. A member of the audience —neighborhood representative Andrew Bantham registered an objection to the submittal of these documents believing they are irrelevant to the question before the Board. Chair Smith said anything that we're getting now will be determined by the Deputy City Attorney as to whether it's relevant to the Board's purview. Secondly, they've not had time to consider the materials given the timing of the submittal. Bailey said he's not asking that it be declared ineligible but rather he's asking the Board to consider the facts that have been presented tonight. His hope is the Board will come to the conclusion that this is a substantial benefit to the community. To the greatest extent possible they've tried to adhere to the LUC which inhibits that. They are asking for the ability to demolish the structure at 1305 S. Shields. They are thwarted from presenting detailed plans because of this hurdle. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 19 Levingston said the applicant is not willing to provide for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in their proposal. While providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Sub -Area plan, providing for the protection of historic resources is required. Due to the fact that this project is only providing, at most, fifty (50) dwelling units and is not incorporating the historic home into the site design, both modifications are unable to be justified because they do not substantially meet a City-wide need, considered on a city-wide basis. Member Schmidt asked about the chicken coop. Levingston said neither the associated out buildings nor 1319 S. Shields were determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Applicant's Presentation Charles Bailey, Catamount Properties, said he was last here in April for the Pura Vida project just north of campus on Laurel. He's been dedicated and focused on multi -family housing for the past 25 years. He wants to show the Board why he thinks the Carriage House project would be a great addition to the community. He said there's some significant acreage in this part of town —a good place to consider alleviating student housing needs. He said he's not yet purchased the property. He has a contract to buy but he has not executed the contract. He's not completed site or engineered elevations —it's just a simple issue of trying to define whether the city sees the property as a cultural resource and if they want student housing across from campus. He thinks the code embraces what they are trying to do there. They are coming to this Board because the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) is really "judge, jury and jailer'. They've talked to them on multiple occasions and he said this is it as far as an appeal to the process. He said there are eleven reasons in the LUC, and seven reasons in the West Central Neighborhood Plan —a total of eighteen elements in favor of this project. There is one element to say this is a cultural resource. He said if they get past this hurdle, this Board will have an opportunity to weigh in on all the site plans. Bailey said the city stated this is a Cape Code house but over time (November and December LPC meetings) and a neighborhood consultant's report, it was deemed Tudor Revival. He said the owner, Bev Carlson, testified at the November 2011 LPC meeting stating she was not in favor of designating this house an individually eligible local landmark. They believe there have been a number of additions, including exterior changes that undermine the integrity and significance of the home as a local landmark. He offered into the record a letter from Gebau (Consulting Structural Engineer) that states there were three distinct additions to the original structure. He said out of a list of nine Tudor style design elements it has one - clipped gables. It has two of the fine design elements of a Cape Code. He said effectively it is a conglomeration of two architectural styles that are in conflict with each other. Bailey presented the site plan. There will be five separate, three story buildings with a total square foot for each of approximately 10,000. He thinks they provide a living situation that would be ideal. It's only about 60% of the floor area ratio that this site could endorse. They want the buildings to be compatible with the neighborhood —smaller and more individualized. It's designed to have porches and articulation and to look like single-family homes. There will be five separate, three story buildings with a total floor area of 36, 300 square feet. The lot area (including 1319 S. Shields) is 64,829 square feet the floor area maximum for the NCB zone. They propose 30-50 units with approximately 100 beds. There will be 52 parking spaces located in the back of the site. Planning & Zoning Board February 16, 2012 Page 18 Project: Carriage House Apartments Modifications of Standards, # MOD120001 Project Description: This is a request for two stand-alone modifications; one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure. The applicant is requesting to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructing five multi -family buildings with approximately ten units per building. The project will have a mix of one, two and three bedroom units; however the specific quantity of each bedroom type is not finalized at this time as a Project Development Plan is yet to be submitted. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District and is within the Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District; multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. If approved, a stand-alone modification is valid for one year. As part of the redevelopment, two standards will not be satisfied; therefore, two Modification of Standard requests have been submitted as stand-alone requests. Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planner Courtney Levingston said Section 3.4.7 contains standards requiring the preservation of structures determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, to the maximum extent feasible. Levingston reviewed photographs of 1305 and 1309 S. Shield. She said LUC Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard requires 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 She said LUC Section 3.4.7 (E) — Relocation or Demolition requires 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. Maximum extent feasible means no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or to minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. The proposed plans require demolition of the homes at 1305 and 1319 S. Shields. 1305 S. Shields has been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation; 1319 S. Shields was not and that is why that structure is not in question tonight. Levingston reviewed photographs that provided neighborhood context. 'W/ 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 Jefferson Street Project (Other Business) Remington Annex Modification of Standards, MOD120002 Description: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications; one regarding eighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District density standards, one for N -B rear -lot floor area ratio (FAR), one regarding the N-C-B dimensional stands sand two relating to historic preservation standards. As proposed/rking the proje would demolish the existing structures and combine the lots at 7015 Remington Street, constructing one multifamily building with 30 8 one bedroom units, and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 unitsto meet their parking requirement, the applicant is proposing a bi-levage, with one level at ade and one below grade providing a total ofaces. The rcels are located in the N-C-B—Nei The ap oval of these modifications is t request \approval. project de vel mei modificatd for one ye . Upon intends to move fo and with Zoning B) Projec evelopmer plans for Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Commen and Othe Evid Planner Courtney Levingston said Se ion 4.9 (D) co it that the applicant is unable to me in their proposal f applicant is unable to meet two ndards contained in Si maximum extent feasible, of individually eligible local National and State Register 9rst Oborhood Conservation Buffer District. cal to project viability; that is why this it plan. If approved, the stand-alone approval of this request, the applicant their previous Type 2 (Planning and t Plan submittal and provide additional three standards relating to density and bulk 42 unit multifamily project. Additionally, the (ion 3.4.7 regarding the preservation, to the irWmark structure that is located within the All three subject property , 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are sated Laurel School Nation Register Historic District, established in 1980 ee properties, 705 a 715 Remington Street, were determined to be "intrusions" whe was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on 1 Street are als fisted on the National and State Register, as contributing properties a designated Fort Collins Landmarks. The properties at 705 were dete ined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation Remin n (Button House) was determined individually eligible for local tangy 2011 within the boundaries of the attachment 2). Two of the ational and State Register 700 Block of Remington o t district. Two of those and%desi mington Street howeproperty at 711 maration in August f.jV 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 if 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.