Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (5)April3, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz requested Council examine the process regarding the LPC. City Manager Atteberry stated he has already met with staff regarding that issue and he will return to Council with additional information. Councilmember Troxell stated the LPC process is flawed but supported the motion regarding the modification of standard. Councilmember Horak stated he could not yet agree the process if flawed. Councilmember Troxell replied the application for this property represents 1301 South Shields as part of the justification as to why it should be applicable for historical designation; therefore the Planning and Zoning Board decisions have been based on flawed materials that have gone through the LPC. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would supportthe motion but agreed the LPC process needs to be reviewed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. _ THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Poppaw requested that staff prepare information regarding an unused medicine disposal site and place the item on the six month planning calendar. The discussion should include all pharmaceutical and personal care products. Councilmember Kottwitz agreed and suggested possibly partnering the event with the hazardous waste disposal day. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson agreed and requested an examination of all possible options. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ATTEST: Interim City Clerk Adjournment VIM 336 April3, 2012 a solution is not found, the applicant can develop plans and submit them for approval. At that point, the plans would return to the LPC. The LPC could then approve the project as submitted, opt for a maximum of a 45-day postponement to create a solution among neighbors, or state that the property has such significance it should be considered for landmark designation against a property owners' desire. In that case, Council would make the final decision. Any decision made by the LPC in its final hearing is appealable to Council. Council makes the final decision regarding all landmark designations, based on recommendation from the LPC. Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted the process referenced in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code is an eligibility process, not the actual designation process. Councilmember Troxell asked why the decision is not being appealed in terms of the property's eligibility for designation. McWilliams replied, once the building is found to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, the applicant would develop plans. Councilmember Troxell stated that presupposes that the eligibility is valid. McWilliams confirmed that is what the applicant maintained; however, the eligibility of the properrty was reviewed on three separate occasions, the first two of which were based solely on the property's architectural merits, its rarity in Fort Collins, and the age of additions or alterations. The fact that Mr. Carlson had lived in the building was not brought forth at all until the third determination of eligibility. The report presented by the neighborhood group was present for the third determination of eligibility. Mayor Weitkunat noted the structure has been determined to be eligible for historic designation. The applicant chose to go before the Planning and Zoning Board to request a stand-alone modification of standard. The Board had to first determine whether or not the granting of that modification would impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code or substantially alleviate an existing and defined problem. Council must now determine whether or not the Board properly applied the Code. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Councilmember Manvel noted the Planning and Zoning Board was making its decision with the given that the property was eligible for designation, and agreed the hearing was fair. Councilmember Troxell agreed the hearing was fair; however, he stated the process with the LPC is flawed and lacks checks and balances.. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code. 335 April3, 2012 He stated the applicant believes this project enhances the public good and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the project satisfies the requirements to grant the modification. Opponent Rebuttal Mr. Bantham stated the neighborhood supports student housing but stated it is not the only goal which should be supported by the development process. He requested Council uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Council Discussion Mayor Weitkunat commended both sides on their presentations and requested input from Deputy City Attorney Daggett regarding the purview of Council regarding this decision. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied there are two types of questions before Council: the first relates to the hearing process before the Planning. and Zoning Board. Assuming Council finds the Board hearing to be fair with a proper process, Council would then move to the question of whether or not the Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code. Councilmember Troxell stated the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) application contained incorrect information; parts of the justification for declaring this property to be historic are inaccurate. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the Planning and Zoning Board hearing could be considered unfair as they may or may not have been presented with accurate information, and 'asked if this process is part of the appeal process for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the Land Use Code specifically references the Chapter 14 _process and states that a structure that is determined to be eligible for historic designation is considered to be eligible for the purposes of the Land Use Code. Chapter 14 does not specify an; administrative appeal process for determinations made relating to eligibility for landmark designation; therefore, the process in Chapter 14 and the Land Use Code becomes the process by which those issues are tackled. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if property owners can reapply or go through the Planning and Zoning Board with the same property once it has been determined to be eligible. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied this project actually had three different reviews at the Chapter 14 level, all of which resulted in determination of individual eligibility. There is no limit in Chapter 14 on eligibility'review and the Land Use Code has limits on resubmissions of ODPs and PDPs in terms of timing, but does not address resubmission in terms of modifications. Councilmember Manvel asked about the referenced preliminary and final hearings. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the preliminary hearing process is a process in which the LPC attempts to work with the applicant to come up with ideas which may result in a mutually agreeable outcome. If that does not occur, the project continues through the process and the LPC provides a final review of an approved plan. That review cannot undo the Land Use Code approval. Councilmember Manvel asked why no development plan has been submitted. McWilliams replied the process would typically involve a preliminary hearing with the LPC to discuss alternatives that would meet the different Code standards and would allow the applicant to develop the project. If 334 April3, 2012 Appellant Presentation Charles Bailey, Catamount Properties, appellant, introduced. attorney Jeff Johnson, and historic architectural specialists, Jim Burshoff from Oz Architects and Juan Luna from Rogue Architects. He requested consideration of three key elements: review of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision and findings, definition of public good, and a final determination based on facts. He stated plans have not been submitted, given the potential of the historical aspect preventing the project. Mr. Bailey discussed the history of the area on Shields Street and pointed out the lack of historical features of the house at 1305 South Shields Street. He discussed a report from Rouge Architects which was received by the Planning and Zoning Board at the night of its hearing and noted it was presented late due to the nature of the modification request at that hearing; there was no request to deny the historical designation of the structure at that hearing. Mr. Bailey discussed the errors, in his opinion, of the Historitecture Report relied upon by staff to conclude that the structure is individually eligible for historical designation. He stated this home has no historical integrity or significance and. should not be eligible for designation. Mr. Bailey discussed the policies in various City Codes and Plans which are supportive of his proposed project. Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted Mr. Bailey provided copies of a highlighted document of record and stated the Code requires any new written materials be submitted by noon the Wednesday prior to the Council meeting. She recommended that Council consider whether or not it will accept the documents at this point. The attorney for the opponents did not have any objection to the submission of the material and Council opted to accept the highlighted documents. Opponent Presentation Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, discussed the development process and historical designation process to this point. Dave Taylor, 1302 Bennett Road, addressed City Code provisions and stated the Planning and Zoning Board provided a fair hearing and correctly and fairly applied Land Use Code provisions. He requested the Planning and Zoning Board decision be upheld. Andrew Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, supported the Planning and Zoning Board denial of the modification requests and suggested the applicant is attempting to circumvent the development process by requesting that he not have to comply with certain Land Use Code sections. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Bailey introduced Bev Carlson, the property owner at 1305 South Shields Street. She opposed the historical designation of the home and stated her rights have been disregarded with regard to her desire to sell the property. Jeff Johnson, attorney for Mr. Bailey, stated the appellants are not circumventing the development process, but rather implementing it in the only way allowed to challenge the fundamental decision ofthe Director of Neighborhood Services and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson. 333 April3, 2012 The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to property interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and demolition of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two standalone modification ofstandard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). SUMMARY The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the process and proced ures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that has been determined io be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal ofa Project Development Plan, which was heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny both of the request for modifications based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. " Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett stated this appeal was filed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, which amended the appeal procedure. Daggett added that new evidence is only admissible in certain circumstances: evidence that is presented to support or oppose a claim that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false or grossly misleading and evidence offered in response to questions of Councilmembers during this proceeding. Only parties -in -interest are allowed to participate in this hearing. Council may opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board's denials, or may remand all or part of the decisions back to the Board for re -hearing or further consideration of specific matters. Mayor Weitkunat stated she took part in a site visit to the property, along with Councilmembers Horak and Ohlson. Courtney Levingston, City Planner, stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied two modification requests relating to the demolition of the house at 1305 South Shields Street, which was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Levingston described the conceptual plan for development of the site. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, described the demolition alteration review process. As conceptually proposed, the Carriage House Apartments project does not comply with two sections of the Land Use Code for Historic and Cultural Resources and the applicant has, therefore, requested modifications of standard. Following the Board's denial of said modifications, the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk's Office citing grounds that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. McWilliams and Levingston discussed the allegations in the appeal. 332 April 3. 2012 The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board Jailed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibilityfor local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Additionally, the State ` of Colorado,CulturalResourceSurveyArchitecturalInventoryFormthattheAppellantreferences y on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the 1 Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of eligibility. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination ofeligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibilityfor the residence at 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood definition of "substantial " Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition ofsubstantial, as stated in the staff report, was determined using Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) pursuant to LUC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board.was "considerable in amount, value or worth. " In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition ofthe word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staffand subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states, (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 Council, and the strict application ofsuch a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial. 331 April3, 2012 In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied -with. LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that: 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: (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 ofthe City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The staff report to the Board. notes that, "while providing for inf ll and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan... providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. " The Planning and Zoning Board's discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal The Appellant states thatgranting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing policies from the West Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing Objectives. On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map. This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on thefact that they are detrimental to the public good. As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providingfor the protection of historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes that, "the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of heritage and area identity. " 330 April3, 2012 not review or consider any ofthese reports in making its decisions on the modifications ofstandards (transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board's consideration, the Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated,"Thefact ofrelevancy ofthese documents is that, again, we're not asking for a declaration that the home isn't eligible, these are just supporting materials that were part of the slide show. ".... and, "But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were not asking that your decision hinge on those reports. " (Transcript, pg.15). B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, "A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good " and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan, West Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property•in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark..., then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use ofthe historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value ofany historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or •(b) is located on property adjacent to the developmentsite... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation ... 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. 329 April 3, 2012 ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office. The Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading The Appellant states, "The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect.." The Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305 South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects Report, in support of this assertion. The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the modifications of standard request. Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the determination ofeligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible for local landmark designation. The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff report on the modifications ofstandards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15). The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 201 Z at the same time as electronic copies of the Appellant's Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did 328 April3, 2012 house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November, and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be scheduled after the receipt ofsubmittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extentfeasible, attempted to comply with the Code provision and 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. Therefore, the Appellant chose to submit two "stand-alone" modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made. the following motions: The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff , and unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification ofstandard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? 327 April3, 2012 Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested statements indicating job creation numbers should not be provided without evidence. Birks agreed and City Manager Atteberry replied data from Hewlett Packard will be provided to Council. Birks noted this addition has created one of the first data centers that is being operated in a more efficient environment. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 028, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand- alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation ofstructures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructingfive multi -family buildings with approximately ten units per building. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand -Alone Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimonyfrom the applicant, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standards requests. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the "Demolition/Alteration Review Process. " In November 2011, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the 326 April 3, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Staff Members Present: Attebeny, Harris, Roy, Daggett. . Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the lack of a strategic plan for the City's bicycle program and encouraged budgeting for outcomes offers supporting the Bike Safety Plan and Bicycle Ambassador Program. Anne Lance, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Leaming Center Executive Director, announced April as the "Month of the Young Child" and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Leah Grossman,•Teaching Tree Early Childhood Leaming Center Infant Teacher, discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Bev Thurber, Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Executive Director, thanked Council for declaring the Month of the Young Child and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Vicky Hays, Poudre River Public Library District Early Literacy Librarian, discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at Colorado State University and presented an informal petition he had circulated in his neighborhood. Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Dr, expressed concern regarding development in and around the Sheely Historic District and supported an overlay zoning district. 304