HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)December 13, 2011
Page 4
To the extent Mr. Johnson's November 23, 2011 letter can be considered a valid request to
designate the property as landmark, and/or if a similar request is made tomorrow during the
preliminary hearing, we would ask that the Commission deny this request.
Sincerely,
Andrew R. Bantham
Andrew R. Bantham
of Ritsema & Lyon, P.C.
ARB/It
cc: Steve Dush, City of Fort Collins (via e-mai/on/yscush%' `c�gv.can )
December 13, 2011
Page 2
Services to sshedule�fi� ► hearing within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of the
following: [Sec.14-72(bx2)]
The section then lists actions the applicant must take and the items the applicant must provide to
have a final hearing scheduled.
However, based on Mr. Johnson's letter to the Commission dated November 23`d, it appears that
there is now a request to alter the process, and designate the property as landmark. If 1
understand correctly, the applicant is now asking the Commission to adopt a resolution
recommending the property for landmark designation, while at the same time stating his opposition
to such recommendation. To many of the neighbors, it appears that the applicant is trying to side
step the process altogether (thereby avoiding the full development review pro ess so that
ap i ents about a igi i i can a made directly to the City ounci . To do so, Mr.
Johnson, has ask t e ommission to adopt a resolution recommen clesignation of the
Based on my review of the Code sections which outline the procedure for designating a property, it
is not clear how an applicant can jump from one process (i.e., review of eligibility for demolition
permit) to a completely different se a uirements, under sec ion ot the Code, for a
i erent 'Fend (i.e., designation as a landmar . oes not appear that even t e initia steps
of th-e--cFesianation procedure have been ii
Section 14-21 requires that a party apply to the Commission, or that the Commission make its own
motion, to designate the structure as a landmark. This section also requires that the application
include a description of the property and a detailed outline of the reasons why the property should
be designated a landmark. To the extent Mr. Johnson's Llovember 23`d letter can be considered
n application for designation, it was not on t e ro er historic reservation arm, nor does it
r ntrnn ion o t e orooerty or the owner's consent to the designation. Without ormally
initiatin the desi nation procedure as r wired b the Loae, rc wouia pe remc
wit t subsequent steps i.e. Commission notification to owner of reasons
designation, a 15- ay waiting period or the owner's consent e
In fact, Mr. Johnson specifically states in the November 23`d letter that the owner does not consent
to landmark designation, a position which was also stated at the November 9'h hearing. The
County's records indicate that the owner i a limited liability compan and the draft minutes of the
November 9'h meeting indicate that an individua , Bev Car son, testified that she has a contract to
sell the property and that she would oppose any such designation. It appears that the process has
not been properly initiated by an application for designation, and that the Commission therefore
cannot give the applicant what he has asked for, which appears to be a request to remove himself
rom a juris fiction of 1he Commission an procee irect y to City Council.
0- PL
December 13, 2011 RITSEMA & LYON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Via e-mail .7c,,; 7c- 'cc
2629 Redwing Road
Karen McWilliams
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Historic Preservation Planner
970.204.905353
970.204.9058 FAX
Development Review Center K'�\
ti;�r;,;��,:,� 7; S'Eivi;'\
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
ANDREW R. BAWHAM, ESQ.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0582
970.ect rect Line
6721 Dir
A ,�..
Re: 1305 South Shields Street
Dear Ms. McWilliams:
As you recall, I live at 1214 Bennett Road, and am a neighbor of 1305 South Shields Street. I
attended the November 9, 2011 preliminary hearing, and plan to attend the December 14, 2011
hearing.
The December 14, 2011 meeting has been noticed as a preliminary hearing on the
Demolition/Alteration review for 1305 S. Shields. My understanding of the purpose of these
preliminary hearings, according to the Code, is that:
The Commission, acting with all due diligence, shall explore with the applicant all means
for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required permit.
[Sec. 14-72(b)o)a.]
During the November 9, 2001 hearing, the a licant did not rovide any alternate plans, or
propose an appropriate public or private use. To my knowledge, no alternative plans or proposa s
have been su mute since a eann�
The Code goes on to state:
If the Commission, at the preliminary hearing, is unsuccessful in developing either alternate
plans or an appropriate public or private use for such structure which are acceptable to the
applicant, it shall the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
DENVER • COLORADO SPRINGS • FORT COLLINS • GRAND JUNCTION • OMAHA