Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STAND. APPEAL - MOD120002 - REPORTS - LEGAL DOCUMENTSDATED: March 1, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, MYATT BRANDES & GAST PC By: Jeffd:le Remington Annex, LLC Christian Bachelet By: Robin Bachelet 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 allow the relocation of the Property know as 711 Remington 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 the relocation of the Property know as 711 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. The Applicant 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. 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. The Property is not eligible in that it lacks the required significance and exterior integrity. Dr. Koziol's opinion concludes "that denying reinvestment along Remington is more surely a path to more incremental decline than to historic preservation." In his well reasoned opinion, Dr. Koziol concludes that "the most appropriate outcome for this property and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street School Historic District is to support reinvestment on Remington (at least the west block face) to an urban design standard and urban density that can support amenities such as high quality housing, structured parking, and well -maintained grounds." Granting the request for modification of standard is in the public good and substantially alleviates problems of City-wide concern, and results in substantial benefit to the City. 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. Appellant respectfully requests a decision granting the modification of standard to allow the relocation of 711 Remington Street. [signatures on following page] 7 B. Failure to conduct a fair hearing 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 demonstrated to be incorrect as follows: (i.) evidence concludes that the Property is also not eligible as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 in that that duplex: (a) 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) is not associated with the lives of person significant in history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and, (c) 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 in that the record includes evidence clearly demonstrating (i) significant alterations and additions to the property with incompatible design, materials and workmanship, (ii) an unknown builder and architect, and a house of "little significance", and, (iii) an unappealing location and setting abutting and adjoining a high traffic commercial alley, and located directly between two properties both of which.are determined as individually ineligible for landmark designation and both of which are listed separately as intrusions to the historic district; and, (d) has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and, (ii.) Board comments and deliberations at the hearing demonstrate that the Board considered evidence grossly misleading. Such comments include references to certain City policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring cars to campus — in favor of zip car subscriptions — and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible Property. Such comments demonstrate that the Board considered relevant grossly misleading evidence in interpreting and applying the Code. (iii.) evidence as submitted by Dr. Koziol concludes that the original Laurel School Historic District survey conducted in 1980 that lists the Property as a contributing to the district is "at best a tepid contextual justification for a building that lacked individual architectural distinction." He finds it "hard to justify the more recent revisionist interpretations to the original survey" in 1980 when the Property was originally determined as a house of "little significance". With regard to the determination of eligibility supported by City Staff and specifically relied upon by the Board, Dr. Koziol concludes that "I am hard pressed to see what new revelations have occurred to make what was a house of `little significance' in 1980 an individually eligible landmark in 2012." problems of city-wide concern or substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. The proposed project satisfies both of these alternative Code provisions. The requested modification and proposed project does not impair the Intent and Purpose of the Land Use Code. In fact, the proposed project further advances the Intent and Purpose of the Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2 by: (i) encouraging renewal through the relocation and restoration of 711 Remington to its original unaltered condition (subsection B); (ii) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel through in -fill development approximate to Colorado State University and student services (subsection F); (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 Corridor, City Transit Center, Colorado State University sidewalk infrastructure and established bicycle routes on Remington Street and throughout downtown Fort Collins (subsection H); and; (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 and the unique synergies and efficiencies arising from common ownership and management of the Collegio mixed -use development and the immediately adjoining Remington Annex residential project (subsection K). Relocation substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs through advancing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, alleviating pressure on enforcement and violations of the "3-unrelated" law, and addressing the concerns identified in the Student Housing Action Plan. Granting the modification of standard to allow relocation of the Property results in a substantial benefit to the City through redevelopment on the west block face of Remington Street which, in the opinion of Dr. Koziol is "the most appropriate outcome for this property and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street School Historic District is to support reinvestment on Remington (at least the west block face) to an urban design standard and urban density that can support amenities such as high quality housing, structured parking, and well - maintained grounds." The proposed project is not practically feasible unless the Property is relocated given its location is between two larger structures each of which is designated as an intrusion. The strict application of the standard, requiring the preservation and adaptive use of the Property that lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance, renders the project practically infeasible at the expense of a substantial opportunity and benefit to alleviate and address important and defined public policy objectives as expressly stated in the City Plan, the concerns identified Student Housing Action Plan and the N-C-B zone district permitted and allowed use. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. 5 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. Relocation is supported as in the public good for the reasons detailed in the expert opinion of Christopher Koziol, Ph.D., AIA, LEED-AP dated February 16, 2012. Dr. Koziol is a licensed Colorado architect, Secretary of the Interior qualified `historic architect' and a degreed urban planner (formerly AICP). In his written opinion, Dr. Koziol describes himself as a preservationist and concludes that the Property in its current condition and in the context of the Laurel School Historic District does not merit in.place protection. He further notes "that denying reinvestment along Remington is more surely a path to more incremental decline than to historic preservation." In his well reasoned opinion, Dr. Koziol concludes that "the most appropriate outcome for this property and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street School Historic District is to support reinvestment on Remington (at least the west block face) to an urban design standard and urban density that can support amenities such as high quality housing, structured parking, and well -maintained grounds." Dr. Koziol's opinion is consistent with the opinion of Vaught, Frye & Larsen, architects for the Appellant, that redevelopment on the west side of Remington Street will allow the N-C-B zone district to function more adequately as the intended transition zone between the Community Commercial District (C-C) zoning that immediately abuts the Property, and the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-B) zone district one block to the east. The Student Housing Action Plan Mission Statement is as follows: "Strive to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility." The proposed project is consistent with the public policy statements embodied in the Student Housing Action Plan, and the studied Project Development Overlay District. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code and stated objectives of City policy 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.. Relocation 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. Substantially Alleviates and Addresses Defined Policies. A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification substantially alleviates existing, defined and described 4 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. 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 LIV 7.7 — Accommodate the Student Population; (7) Policy LIV 10.1 Design Safe, Functional and Visually Appealing Streets; (8) Policy LIV 22.1 — Vary 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, (11) Policy T 3.4 — Travel Demand Management. 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 two substantial additions each of which modified the building exterior such that the Property does not retain or convey any particular architectural style. 711 Remington is a side by side duplex that is irregularly shaped and has a rear addition that is not compatible with the rest of the house. The street facing side of the duplex is estimated to have been constructed in the 1890's as a single family dwelling of approximately 500 square feet. A cinder block three car garage was added to the site in 1947 which is not compatible with the original house in design, materials or workmanship which damages the exterior integrity of the structure. A second major alteration and addition occurred in 1962 with the conversion of the property from a single family residence to a side by side duplex. This addition is also not compatible with the original house. Collectively, the major additions more than double the size of the original structure with negative impacts on the setting, feeling and association of the property. The garage addition and the duplex addition are not compatible with the original house and damage the exterior integrity of the structure. The duplex is located between two larger structures each of which is designated as an intrusion to the Laurel School Historic District. The property is located on the outer most fringe of the Laurel School Historic District. The property directly abuts a high traffic commercial alley, and directly abuts the Community Commercial District (C-C) zoning. The property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) zoning which is a transition zone between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -use areas or high traffic zones. 3 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 relocation to accommodate a proposed project — 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 reach 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 disputes 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 relocation 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 as noted in the Staff report to the Board. This evaluation necessarily involves an evaluation of the historic eligibility of the 2 ATTACHMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL (REMMINGTON ANNEX MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS) 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 711 Remington 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) to allow the relocation of the Property, and one modification to the general standard to nullify the applicability of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) to allow relocation of the Property. Appellant is not appealing the three stand-alone modifications to the zone district standards under Code Section 4.9(D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), or Section 4.9(D(6)(d). 2. DATE OF ACTION: February 16, 2012. 3. APPELLANT: Remington Annex, LLC Christian Bachelet Robin Bachelet 706 South College Avenue, Suite 202 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970)566-2586 4. GROUNDS FOR APPLEAL: A. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of Section 2.8.2(H) 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 relocation of the Property. 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 an expert that the Property is not eligible for historic preservation under the City guidelines. This is an appeal from 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. ATTACHMENT2 Notice of Appeal.