Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - MOD - MOD120001 - LEGAL DOCS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGDATED: March 1, 2012 Catamount Properties, LTD. RE Respectfully Submitted, MYATT BRANDES & GAST PC By: �--�_ Je e o 0 The record establishes that the Property is not eligible in that it does not possess Exterior Integrity since the Property does not have the ability to convey any significance as defined under Section 14-1 of the Municipal Code. The Property has no ability to convey significance for failure to meet the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. The record does establishes that the Property lacks Significance and lacks Exterior Integrity, and that the evidence the Board considered in this regard was substantially false and grossly misleading. 5. REQUESTED RELIEF: Appellant request the following relief: A. That City Council overturn the Planning and Zoning Board decision and grant the modification to the general standard to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B) to the Property know as 1305 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. B. That City Council overturn the Planning and Zoning Board decision and grant the modification to the general standard to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) to allow demolition of the Property know as 1305 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. The Applicant, with the full support and consent of the Property owner, submits that the modification of standard is appropriate since the Property lacks exterior integrity, significance and is not eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or under the National Register. The Applicant submits as a matter of law it is improper for the City to require alterations, or modifications to a proposed project, on the basis of an erroneous and flawed determination of eligibility. Pursuing the requested modification of standards, on the basis of an evaluation of the public good, is the an appropriate possible procedure under the Code to contest the merits of the underlying determination of eligibility. The Appellant respectfully submits that the Property is not eligible in that it lacks the required significance and exterior integrity. The record on appeal supports a finding that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply and interpret relevant sections of the Code in determining that the modification of standard is detrimental to the pubic good. [signatures on following page] did not reside at the Property when the purported events of historical significant occurred. This accurate information is contrary to the false and misleading statements and conclusions in the relevant portion of the Historitecture Architectural Inventory Form report. Nevertheless, the Historitecture Architectural Inventory Form report is accurate in one respect in concluding that the Property is not eligible for National Register designation for failing to meet any of the applicable standards for designation. In addition, evidence supports a finding that the Property is also not eligible as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 as follows: (a) the Property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and, (b) the Property is not associated with the lives of a person significant in history. Mr. William Carlson resided in 1305 South Shields while growing up and completing his undergraduate degree. He moved out of the Property in June of 1950 upon receiving his undergraduate degree (when he was married at the age of 21) never to live there again. During the 1960's and up to 1968, William & Beverly Carlson lived at 1301 S. Shields Street after buying that home from his grandmother. None of the accomplishments listed as important achievements in Mr. Carlson's life such as earning a Ph.D. in radiation biology from Colorado University Medical Center (Denver) or practicing as a veterinarian in Littleton or even chairing the Colorado State University veterinarian school radiology department occurred while living at the Property. Mr. Carlson moved from Fort Collins in 1968 and did not return to Fort Collins or Colorado to live or work after 1968. While Mr. Carlson is accomplished, the evidence is devoid of any evidence that his life is significant in history or significant to Fort Collins history such that it warrants a finding that the property meets this standard for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Such a finding is contrary to wishes of the applicant and Mrs. Beverly Carlson, the property owner and widow of Mr. Carlson. Any contrary determination would be without the consent of the Property owner and does not reflect a delicate balance of community values in this instance; and, (c) the Property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or posse high artistic values or represent a significant and distinguishable entity with components that lack individual distinction. The record demonstrates clearly (i) significant alterations and additions to the property with incompatible design, materials and workmanship, (ii) an unknown builder and architect, and, (iii) conveys significant weaknesses of design; the property is not a good example of either Cape Cod or Tudor Revival, and the combination of two styles does not create a successful eclectic design or significant and distinguishable entity. The design actually creates confusion as evident by the fact that when the property was determined individually eligible, the director and chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission concluded that the property was an example of Cape Cod architecture. The record contains evidence that the Property is characterized as a house with Tudor Revival influences as stated in the Historitecture Architectural Inventory Form; and, (d) the Property has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever, 7 Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District, and the N-C-B zone district permitted and allowed use. The proposed project is not feasible unless the Property is removed given that its location on the site would require the elimination of two small-scale apartment buildings representing 40% of the project. The Property is properly zoned and located in a defined redevelopment area. The Board failed to properly 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. B. Failure to conduct a fair healing in that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading. 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 as follows: (i.) Staff personnel Ms. Karen McWilliams actually apologized for producing an incorrect and misleading November 9, 2011 Staff Report that characterized the property with physical features that it does not actually have, and determined that it was a Cape Cod home with Tudor Revival elements. Also, the initial determination of eligibility was substantially false and grossly misleading in that it was based on an erroneous conclusion that the Property was Cape Cod. The Applicant as demonstrated through the opinion of Mr. Jim Bershoff that the Property is not a good example of either Cape Cod or Tudor Revival, and the combination of two styles does not create a successful eclectic design or significant and distinguishable entity. While flawed and misleading in many respects, Architectural Inventory Form report (State of Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form) from a film called I-Iistoritecture dated November 30, 2011 concludes that the Property is Tudor Revival and not Cape Cod further demonstrating that the Board's reliance on the Staff opinion and eligibility determination was based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence; and, (ii.) The Rogue Architects Report dated February 15, 2012 presents considerable evidence supporting the assertion that the house has no exterior integrity and no historic significance. The two architectural styles purported by Staff to characterize the house are said to be actually in conflict with one another and generally not supporting eligibility the Property; and, (iii.) The Historitecture Architectural Inventory Form relied upon by City Staff and the Board (and previously the Landmark Preservation Commission) falsely proclaimed that the home had Historical Significance because Mr. William Carlson had authored several publications on veterinarian science and was the past president of the University of Wyoming. The fact is that Mr. Carlson moved from his childhood home in June of 1950 and did not live there again and did not live there when any of the events purported to be significant occurred. Staff made no attempt to reconsider its previous recommendation in view of evidence presented to the Board by the Property owner, Mrs. Beverly Carlson that her husband actually 1i Substantially Alleviates and Addresses Defined Policies. A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern or substantially addresses and benefits important community -r' needs. The proposed project satisfies both of these alternative Code provisions. The Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood definition of i- k "substantial". The relevant definition of "substantial" in Webster's Third New International a� Dictionary is — Important. Measuring substantial as to the nominal "value" or "worth" of the project in comparison to another project that is completely unrelated to the proposed project and v' Property is an error on the part of City Staff, which error the Board relied in its failure to properly interpret and apply the Code. Further, the definition of "substantial" mentions the words `value" or "worth" only in terms of abundant or plentiful wealth, as in a substantial gain in a transaction. The concepts of "value" or "worth" are subjective in nature and are inapplicable in the context of a proper Code interpretation and application. The proposed project substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern as noted above, and substantially addresses and benefits important community K needs through advancing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, alleviating pressure on,tiJ enforcement and violations of the "3-unrelated" law, and addressing the concerns identified in the Studen Housing Action Plan. *- rJot oil n&p}� 1MCU -(i� The requested modification and proposed project does not impair the Intent and Purpose k�'�L L [the the Land Use Code. In fact, the proposed project further advances the Intent and Purpose of . Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2 by: (i) fostering the safe, efficient and economic usethe land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and servicesubsection C; and, TOD overlay district policy); (ii) encouraging patterns of land use which \�e� decrease trip length of automobile travel through in -fill development approximate to Colorado Y— ww1J State University and student services (subsection F; and, TOD overlay district policy of C,( 1 encouraging stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within TOD overlay district); (iii) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trials bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation through in -fill development approximate to the Mason Street T` Corridor, City Transit Center, Colorado State University sidewalk infrastructure and established bicycle routes in the WCNP area (subsection H; and, TOD overlay district policy); (iv) fostering a more rational relationship among residential and business uses for the mutual benefit of all through in -fill development approximate to established student services (subsection K; and, TOD overlay district policy); (v) encouraging development of vacant properties within established areas (subsection L; and WCNP); and, (vi) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods (subsection M; and, N-C-B zone district compliance). Further, a strict application of the standard for the preservation and adaptive use of a property that lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for failing to meet any one (1) of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code (or in the alternative has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant), renders the project practically infeasible when balanced against the expressly stated goals of the City Plan, the West Central Neighborhood Plan, the Transit -Oriented 1 FA (iii.) The City Staff relied upon an Architectural Inventory Form report (State of Colorado Cultural Resource Survey form) from a firm called Historitecture dated November 30, 2011 in determining that the subject property was eligible for historic protection. That same report concludes in paragraph #44 that the subject property is not eligible for the National Register. On December 5, 2011, the Director in affirming his determination of eligibility endorses the Mstoritecture report noting that the Property retains "a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity established by the National Park Service and adopted as part of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code" This conflicts directly with the Historitecture report that specifically states that the Property is not eligible for the National Register. The requirements for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Code Section 14-5 are in fact identical to the National Register standards as administered by the National Park Service. To be eligible, the Property must not only be shown to be Significant, but must also have Exterior Integrity. The Applicant has demonstrated that the Property has neither Exterior Integrity nor Significance. The Property does not possess the requisite degree of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity. The Property has undergone three substantial additions each of which modified the building exterior such that the Property does not retain or convey any particular architectural style. The additions modified and added a kitchen and patio, dinning room and family room, and a two car garage. The Property additions are outlined in the report dated February 15, 2012 prepared by structural engineer Paul Gallagher, P.E. of the Gebau, Inc. These additions are not compatible with the original structure and are extremely damaging to the Exterior Integrity of the Property. The garage doubled the size of the Property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a Property with physical and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and heritage is lost as noted in the report of Mr. James S. Bershof, FAIA, LEED AP, an architect with OZ Architecture, dated November 22, 2011. The Property lacks the requisite Significance in that it fails to meet any one (1) or more of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. In the alternative, we assert that the Property still lacks the required Significance even if the record had demonstrated that the Property had met one (1) or more of the standards for Landmark designation under Section 14-5. The Property lacks a composite of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity of sufficient degree such that it has no ability to convey any Significance as required under the Code. The Property does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant as established in the detailed report of Mr. Juan Gabriel Luna, AIA, NCARB of Rogue Architecture, dated February 15, 2012. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the 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 so doing, the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. Demolition of the Property is not detrimental to the public good. In fact, the proposed project substantially alleviates problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses defined policies expressly stated in the City Plan, the West Central Neighborhood Plan and the TOD overlay zone district, for a project that is otherwise in compliance with all applicable zone district standards and for a permitted use. 4 4 eligibility of the Property when considering the public good and how the proposed project advances specific City policy objectives. Public Good. A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good. The Planning and Zoning Board ("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 and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. The proposed project addresses multiple specific Policies of City Plan, is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan, and is located in the Transit - Oriented Development ("TOD") Overlay Zone District. The proposed plan is designed in full compliance with zone district standards articulated in the N-C-B zone district and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the following Code provisions: (i.) Granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good. In fact, the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing eleven separate Policies from the City Plan, and Figure — 4 as a Pedestrian Priority Area in the City Pedestrian Plan, .in support of the requested modification of standard. The proposed project advances and addresses the following specifically identified policies of the City Plan: (1) Policy EH 4.1— Priorities Targeted Redevelopment Areas; (2) Policy LIV 5.1— Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill; (3) Policy LIV 6.1 — Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas; (4) Policy LIV 7.2 — Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing; (5) Policy LIV 7.4 — Maximize Land for Residential Development; (6) Policy L1V 7.7 — Accommodate the Student Population; (7) Policy LIV 10.1 Design Safe, Functional and Visually Appealing Streets; (8) Policy LIV 22.1 — Vaiy Housing Models and Types; (9) Policy LIV 22.2 — Provide Creative Multi -Family Housing Design; (10) Policy LIV 43.3 — Support Transit -Supportive Development Patterns; and,(! j) Policy T 3.4 — Travel Demand Management; and, (ii.) Granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good. In fact, 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 as follows: (1) Map 2 — West Central Neighborhoods Plan, Conservation, Development and Redevelopment Areas; (2) Map 3 — Land Use and Housing Densities Plan; (3) Map 4 — Zone District Plan; (4) Policy F7 — The City should encourage the development of additional student housing by Colorado State University (either by the university or some public/private partnership) on, or adjacent to, the Main Campus; (5) Housing Goal HO 4 — Create development opportunities for multi -family housing in appropriate locations including but not limited to vacant and/or deteriorated properties close to Colorado State University; (6) Future Housing Needs (B) — proposed project is consistent with policy that encourages small-scale apartment buildings on the west side of Shields that are converted to rentals and adjoin vacant land; and, (7) Housing Design (B) — policy references three story structures adjacent to Colorado State University and the proposed project is designed in compliance with zone district standards as a smaller -scale multi -family housing to balance Future Housing Need goals of buffer zones with student housing needs; and, 3 I :4 Chapter 14, Article IV, is entitled Demolition or Relocation of Historic Structures Not Designated as Fort Collins Landmarks or Located in a Fort Collins Landmark District. Basically, this section of the Code provides a procedure for the City to evaluate the historic significance and eligibility of a property before the property owner is able to obtain a building or a demolition permit. This process applies automatically to every property in the City that is more than 50 years old. If the Director and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission agree, or if there is a split decision, that a property is eligible for Landmark designation, the property owner must appear before the Landmark Preservation Commission at a public hearing. The property owner is unable to obtain a permit, if at all, until after this public hearing. The public hearing is limited under the Code to a discussion exploring all means for substantially preserving the structure including feasibility of a plan modification or feasibility of an alternative public or private use to preserve the property. Under the Code and as interpreted and applied by City Staff, neither the property owner nor the Landmark Preservation Commission is empowered to change the "eligibility" determination. The hearing is limited to exploring alternative designs and alternative uses to preserve the property that is deemed eligible. The property owner is unable to dispute the eligibility determination under the Code as interpreted and applied by City Staff. This procedure may work relatively well to evaluate the impact of an exterior remodel or addition to an existing property that happens to be 50 years old. If so, the property owner submits the request to the Landmark Preservation Commission at the public hearing with the defined objective of discussing alternative plans and other uses of the property. However, Appellant respectfully submits that this is difficult process to evaluate the historic merit of a property that is proposed for demolition — especially when there is a difference of opinion on the underlying historic value of the property. Once a property is determined eligible, the property owner is left with difficult choices. One choice is to appear before the Landmark Preservation Commission to explore options and alternatives that preserve the property even though the owner believes the property has no historic value. Appellant appeared twice before the Landmark Preservation Commission but was unable to agreement for predictable reasons - the Appellant disagrees with the opinion that the Property has historic value. City Staff believes that Appellant must plan the proposed project in a manner that incorporates or preserves the Property. Appellant, and the property owner, dispute the contention that the project must be redesigned to preserve this Property on the basis that it has no historic value and is not eligible. Another choice, as recommended by City Staff, is to file a modification of standards request to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. to the Property. If granted, it is Appellant's contention that the Property is no longer eligible, a demolition permit is available, and that Appellant may proceed through the City's entitlement process under the Land Use Code. This background is important to understand why, under the Code, the modification request involves a detailed discussion of the underlying historic merit of the Property. A determination of the public good requires a delicate balance of community values as noted in the Staff report to the Board. This evaluation necessarily involves an evaluation of the historic �E�C' RY NOTICE OF APPEAL ,g OFFICE NII (CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS MODIFICATION OF STAR 1. ACTION OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD: Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's ("Board") denial of two stand-alone modifications concerning the property known as 1305 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado (the "Property"). One modification to the general standard to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B), and one modification to the general standard to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) to allow demolition of the Property. 2. DATE OF ACTION: February 16, 2012. 3. APPELLANT: Mr. Charles A. Bailey Catamount Properties, Ltd 7302 Rozena Drive Longmont, Colorado 80503 (303) 884-1021 4. GROUNDS FOR APPLEAL: A. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the City of Fort Collins Code ("Code") in the request for a modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code to allow demolition of the Property as requested by the Applicant, with the frill support and consent of the Property owner, Mrs. Beverly Carlson. Background. The historic value of a property should be determined based on an evaluation of the specific characteristics of the property. That simple concept is often difficult to implement. A property's historic value, or lack of value, should stand on its own merit without consideration of any alternative or proposed use of a property. The Appellant disagrees with City Staff on the eligibility and historic value of the Property. The record on appeal contains the written opinion of three experts that the Property is not eligible for historic preservation under the City or National Register guidelines. Ironically, one of the reports was presumably submitted by individuals that oppose the student oriented apartment project. Nevertheless, City Staff as tainted the Property as "eligible" under Chapter 14 of the Code. This is an appeal fiom the denial of two stand-alone modification of standard requests. Appellant submitted the modification of standard requests, as advised by City Staff, as an appropriate way to contest the opinion of City Staff that the Property is "eligible" and thus subject to Chapter 14 of the Code.