HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/01/1999•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999
6:30 p.m.
Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Glen Colton
Vice Chair: Sally Craig
(H) 225-2760 (W) 898-7963
(H)484-9417
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Meyer, Gavaldon, Colton. Member Craig was absent.
Staff Present: Fuchs, Barnes, Eckman, Shepard, Wamhoff and Deines.
Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
1. Minutes of the January 15, February 18, April 16, 1998 January
21 (Continued) and February 18, 1999 (Continued) Planning
and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. PZ99-5 Easement Vacation.
3. #8-99 Willow Brook Annexation and Zoning No. 1
4. #8-99A Willow Brook Annexation and Zoning No. 2
Discussion Agenda:
5. The Greens At Collindale - Referred Minor Amendment.
Planner Shepard reported that a citizen had requested the Consent Items 1 and 2 be
pulled for discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1 which only includes the
January 15, February 18 and April 16, 1998 minutes and Consent Item 2. Member
Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
Project: Willow Brook Annexation & Zoning No. 1, #8-99
Willow Brook Annexation & Zoning No. 2, #8-99A
Project Description: Annexation and zoning of approximately 39.41 (No.
1) and 75.22 (No. 2) acres of privately owned
property located east of County Road 7 and north of
County Road 36. The recommended zoning is LMN,
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and is located
is within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
Recommendation: Staff Recommends approval of the annexations and
recommends that the properties be placed in the
LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning
District.
Hearing TestimonyWritten Comments and Other Evidence:
Robert Palmer, 4000 E. County Road 36 stated that they have submitted a petition that
reads that they oppose and object to the proposed density of 5 units per acre. Mr.
Palmer spoke for his neighbors in that they felt it would decrease their property values,
increase road traffic and the development would disrupt their rural lifestyles. He
suggested a lower density of a large strip of property behind them for a buffer from the
housing area.
Mr. Palmer asked if it had been considered that the project and its proximity to 1-25
would house mostly commuters and that they would not be contributing to the tax base
in Fort Collins, and they would be adding to the traffic on 1-25. Mr. Palmer reported that
another historic cabin dating back to 1867 has been discovered in the area.
Planner Fuchs gave a brief staff presentation for the Board.
Public Input
John Hattfield, 55005 S. County Road 7, spoke on the project. He stated that he has
lived there for 10 years, and has been in Larimer County the last 45 years. Mr. Hattfield
presented aerial photos of his property showing the airfield located on his property that
was approved by the County years ago.
Mr. Hattfield stated that the current zoning in the area is airport zoning. He felt that a
big subdivision would be contrary to it. Mr. Hattfield reported that the photographs he
presented showed each of the affected properties along County Road 7 and 36.
Mr. Hattfield asked the Planning and Zoning Board to deny this annexation.
Mr. Hattfield stated that he has a private air strip which certain laws give him protected
air space for proper taking off and landing of an aircraft safely. He did not think that
could occur with a house sitting at the end of his runway.
Planner Fuchs stated that a project development plan has not been received to date on
this property.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Planner Fuchs reviewed a letter dated July 3, 1995 addressed to Mr. John Hattfield
from the Federal Aviation Administration stating that the FAA could not prevent the
construction of structures near an airport. The airport environment can only be
protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property
rights. Planner Fuchs stated that according to our zoning map and City Plan, we do not
have any zoning that dictates or governs protection of private air strips.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that Federal Laws would have to be enforced
separately from the City's zoning process or by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Member Carpenter asked about the dirt road abutting the properties and was the road
within this annexation and who does it belong to.
Planner Fuchs referred the question to the applicant.
Craig Kam, Director of Planning for Nutzer Kopaz Design Associates representing the
applicant responded to several questions and comments made by citizens and the
Board. Mr. Kam replied that the traffic issues would be addressed at the time they
submit an Overall Development Plan. Because the annexation is not complete at this
point they cannot submit an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan.
Mr. Kam stated that the project was intended to be a low density mixed use
neighborhood in compliance with the City Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Plan. He
stated he was not aware of any historic structures or other elements on site or adjacent
to the property but was willing to do a historic investigation or resource inventory of the
site as a requirement of future submittals. He stated that there was not any natural
resource areas identified on the city's natural resource map for this site, which may be
because it is not annexed, but they will do that investigation on the site also.
Mr. Kam stated that regarding the airstrip, while the FAA has responded that it is
appropriate to have this airfield activity, that there are not any restrictions on their
clients property in response to that and that would have to be facilitated through
purchase or an action by the City of Fort Collins when the property is annexed to create
an airfield zone.
Mr. Kam spoke on the access road and that he has not seen it on any of the plats or
any legally surveyed platted easement, which does not mean there has not been a
historic use of the road. He stated that the uses along that edge, because the site
drains in that direction, it was a likely location along that entire property line where a lot
of their stormwater management and detention facilities will be and can be combined
with buffering for transition to the county properties to the east.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Member Colton had concerns proceeding with this annexation until he gets more
information on the airstrip and the laws.
Deputy City Attorney felt the airport issues would be best addressed at the time of
development. He did not know what regulations regarding airports might apply to this
airstrip. He did not think it would matter for the purposes of considering the annexation.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Willowbrook Annexation and Zoning
No. 1, #8-99 with the recommended zoning of LMN, Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon was concerned with the airstrip, but he felt Mr. Eckman addressed
the issue.
Member Carpenter offered a friendly amendment to the motion and that the
airstrip be looked into before this goes to Council.
Member Gavaldon accepted the friendly amendment.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated he would honor the amendment and he would
speak not only to Mr. Hattfield, but also to Mr. Anderton about the airstrip and also
examine the statute if there is one.
Chairperson Colton felt the friendly amendment would cover his concerns and he would
only support the annexation if there is resolution on the issue.
Chairperson Colton urged the affected property owners to give their opinions to City
Council when they here is annexation and zoning.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Member Gavaidon moved for approval of Willowbrook Annexation and Zoning
No. 2, #8-99A with the recommending zoning of LMN, Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood with the previous amendment to investigate the runway on the
private air strip.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Project: The Greens At Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
Project Description: Request for a minor amendment to redesign the approved
and partially constructed fence/wall adjacent to Lemay
Avenue. The proposed fence/wall will consist of 16 foot
sections of 5 foot high solid masonry panels with a stone
cap top, separated by 6 foot masonry columns. Selected
sections of the fence/wall will be shorter (45 inches)
including a row of glass block between the masonry panel
and the stone cap. 32 feet of the northern section will be
open with wrought iron fencing.
Recommendation: Approval
This project was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
•
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Held Thursday, July 1, 1999
At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the matter of a referred minor amendment
concerning The Greens at Collindale PUD
Landsource, LLC, Applicant
Glen Colton, Chair
Jerry Gavaldon
Jennifer Carpenter
Judy Meyer
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Ted Shepard, Planning Department
Peter Barnes, Planning Department
Georgiana Deines, Planning Department
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll -free (800) 482-1506
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax: (970) 482-1230
e-mail: meadors@frii.com
K
1 MR. BARNES: Okay. The next item is -- item on
2 the discussion agenda, which is the Greens at Collindale
3 PUD, a referred minor amendment to the Board.
4 The Greens at Collindale PUD received final
5 approval from the Planning and Zoning Board October 28th,
6 1996. The project development was for 33 single-family
7 dwelling units. The preliminary and final plans were both
8 approved on the consent agenda items, the consent agenda, at
9 the respective Planning and Zoning Board meetings.
10 The approved plan that the Board considered
11 authorized construction of a six -foot -tall fence along Lemay
12 that was to be constructed of a combination of solid
13 masonry, six -foot -high sections and wrought iron open
14 sections. Or wrought iron open metal picket sections.
15 The developer has applied for a minor amendment
16 to revise the Lemay Avenue fence. The new fence would be a
17 combination of five -foot -high solid masonry sections and
18 45-inch-high masonry walls with a row of glass blocks along
19 the top of those 45-inch-high sections, but they would be
20 included in the 45-inch overall height. In addition, there
21 would also be a 32-foot-wide area of open wrought iron
22 fencing. I'll be going through some slides in a minute.
23 A neighborhood meeting was held on February
24 15th, 1996, for the purpose of presenting the proposed PUD
25 plans to the neighbors. The minutes of that meeting make no
3
•
1
mention of the fence, and since the project was approved on
2
consent, both preliminary and final, we have no
3
documentation in the record of whether or not there were any
4
neighborhood issues with regards to the fence.
5
There is one sentence in the staff report that
6
was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board about
7
providing a combination solid fence, wrought iron fence,
8
along Lemay for the purpose of enhancing privacy for the
9
residents and restricting or screening from noise.
10
The Land Use Code permits minor amendments to
11
approved plans, provided that the minor amendment request
12
complies with certain criteria that are in the Land Use
13
Code. This type of minor amendment request, since it's not
14
a plan that was approved by Planning and Zoning Board, is
15
required to comply with four standards before it can be
16
considered to be approved.
17
The first standard is that the minor amendment
18
has less than a one percent increase or decrease in the
19
number of dwelling units. That is not relative to this
20
particular minor amendment request.
21
Secondly, any increase or decrease in the amount
22
of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure
23
does not change the character of the development. Again,
24
that is not relevant to this particular request.
25
Thirdly, any change in the housing mix or use
V
1 mix ratio that complies with the requirement of the zone
2 district does not change the character of the development;
3 and again, they're not changing or proposing to change any
4 ratio of housing mixes.
5 And lastly, there is no change in the character
6 of the development.
7 Staff has determined that the proposed amendment
8 request complies with all of the four criteria in the Code
9 for minor amendment approval. We believe that it is not a
10 change of character. While the fence is one element of the
11 approved plan, it, of itself, is not the total character of
12 the development. In fact, it is complementary to the
13 architecture -- the proposed revision is complementary to
14 the architecture and other elements of the approved PUD
15 plan.
16 The Code section in question does not require
17 open fencing; and again, the previous fence that was on the
18 approved plan had sections, alternating sections, of open
19 metal picket fencing. The Land Use Code does not require
20 open fencing along arterials or collector streets, nor did
21 the Land Development Guidance System require that and the
22 Land Development Guidance System was the code in effect that
23 this particular plan was reviewed against.
24 When we consider other sections of the Land Use
25 Code that are relevant to the issues of privacy and
5
1
screening along arterial streets, staff believes that it is
2
not only not required but it is not the intent of the Land
3
Use Code to require open fencing. Rather, the intent is to
4
create a visually interesting fence that avoids creating a
5
tunnel effect.
6
And the Land Use Code section that we're
7
comparing the minor amendment request against to ensure
8
compliance, section 3.8.11(1) of the Code states that if
9
used along collector or arterial streets, such features
10
shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating
11
a tunnel effect by integrating architectural elements such
12
as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation into
13
the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence --
14
of the fence or other similar techniques. The staff
15
believes that the proposed fence does meet -- meets those
16
criteria.
17 Let me just go through some slides to
18 familiarize yourself with the project and the proposed
19 fence. The -- to the east of the project right here is
20 Collindale golf course and also to the north. To the south
21 is Golden Meadows, a single-family residential subdivision.
22 on the west side of Lemay, you have Harbor Walk at the
23 Landings.
24 This is the proposed fence that would be located
25 along Lemay. You have five -foot -high sections of solid
9
1 masonry fence. I believe we have -- let me put up another
2 slide here. Yes. You have solid five -foot -high sections of
3 stucco fence, painted whitish in color; a concrete slab on
4 top, which resembles tile, similar to the roofing of' the
5 houses in the development; and the proposed fence, you would
6 step down to 45-inch-high sections here. Again, there would
7 be a row of glass block and also -- whoops -- and again, you
8 would have this same cap. On these five -foot -high sections,
9 the pillars are not quite six feet high.
10 This is a copy of the approved PUD. Here is a
11 rendering of what the approved fence was to look like. You
12 had the solid masonry fence in here and then you had open
13 metal picket fencing, and they were to be -- it's hard to
14 tell if they were alternating sections or if you had a
15 number of sections of open metal picket and then a number of
16 sections of solid masonry fence. But that was the fence
17 that was approved to go along here, six feet in height.
18 Here is Lemay Avenue. Here you see the
19 development in this area. There's several buildings that
20 are under construction or have been completed. They're
21 Mediterranean style in character. You have stucco -styled
22 roofs, and then you have the wall that goes along Lemay
23 Avenue.
24 This is at one of the entrances right here into
25 the development. The wall curves back into the entrance.
C,
•
7
1
And then even some of these sections, I believe, have, you
2
know, some step to them. They're not all at the same
3
height.
4
You can see, right here, different heights of
5
fences. And again, here, you have another view of the homes
6
that are within the development.
7
This is another entrance into the housing
8
development. There are two private road entrances off of
9
Lemay Avenue. I believe this section on Lemay would be the
10
32 feet of open wrought iron fencing. The Water Utility
11
Department is requiring that to be open in design. And
12
there's also a sidewalk that connects from Lemay Avenue into
•
13
the development, so there will be some sort of opening or
14
gate in that wrought iron fence.
15
Again, this is the fence on Lemay. You can see
16
the median in Lemay that is landscaped.
17
Again, the staff is recommending approval of the
18
minor amendment. The code allows minor amendments to be
19
approved by the Planning Director or referred to the
20
Planning and Zoning Board for decision. The decision was
21
made to refer this to the Planning and Zoning Board due to
22
some neighborhood issues that were brought to our attention.
23
I'd be happy to answer any questions at this
24
time, if the Board has any.
25
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Peter, the fence is already
•
J
1 in, right?
2 MR. BARNES: Yes, for the most part. The
3 wrought iron isn't here. The fence that you had is not what
4 you would see. If the minor amendment request is approved,
5 a number of these sections, 17 or 18 of them, approximately,
6 would be removed and replaced with the 45-inch -- what you
7 see are approximately five foot high.
8 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Do you know if they'll
9 completely remove them or just redo them somehow?
10 MR. BARNES: Well, I don't know if they'll take
11 off rows of the block or how they'll exactly do that. But
12 what you see is not what they're proposing the finished
13 product will look like.
14 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Thank you.
15 Okay. In this case, I guess, we really don't
16 have like an applicant, but I guess we have a pro and a con,
17 right, so is there a group out there --
18 MR. SHEPARD: You have an applicant.
19 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Oh. Landsource, LLC? Okay.
20 So that's the people who are building the fence, wanting the
21 fence? Okay. All right. Sir, you're representing them?
22 Okay. If you'd like to come forward. Do you have an idea
23 of approximately how much time you might need? A couple
24 hours? Okay. We'll cut you off in half an hour.
25 MR. WATSON: No, probably five, ten minutes.
9
1
I've got some slides.
2
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Great. I just wanted to
3
see -- is there a group, someone representing a group on the
4
other side as well? All right. Good.
5
Go ahead and give us your name and sign in.
6
MR. WATSON: Bill Watson.
7
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Be sure you talk into the
8
microphone.
9
MR. WATSON: Bill Watson, 2101 Sage Drive, Fort
10
Collins. I represent the developer.
11
And we're seeking redesign of our -- our fence
12
from the initial design because we believe it's got some
•
13
advantages over the old design and that it is consistent
14
with the Land Use Code.
15
And I refer the Land Use Code as to the Land Use
16
Code's intent and purpose as it applies to our development
17
here of the Greens at Collindale, and that's to improve and
18
protect the public health, safety, and welfare by, number
19
one, encouraging innovation in land development; number two,
20
fostering a safe, efficient, and economic use of the land;
21
and three, improving the design, quality, and
22
characteristics of new development. And we believe
23
specifically that our wall fits in and integrates with those
24
specific parts of the Land Use Code.
25
So I'd like to show some slides about the fence
10
1 and explain how we think our fence complies with the Land
2 Use Code in all respects, plus I'd like to look at several
3 other divisions of the Land Use Code other than what was
4 already brought up.
5 The particular standard that was already brought
6 up was 3.8, and that's found in supplemental regs of the
7 Land Use Code. Also, we believe that transportation and
8 circulation addresses the issue in division 3.6, and site
9 planning and design addresses the issue in section 3.2.
10 So I'd like to start with section 3.8, with the
11 slides, and explain how we feel our proposed fence complies
12 with that.
13 Okay. I don't know. This isn't where number
14 one is. How do I get to number one?
15 Okay. Pushing it forward. Okay. Starting in
16 here, this is not a wall on Lemay. This is interior to the
17 development. And it's a wall that goes inside the
18 development from our model home, what you see there, to some
19 other lots.
20 So this is inside and interior to our
21 development, and I just wanted to show you the slide to show
22 you how it's very similar to the wall that we have out on
23 Lemay. we have the same pilasters that you see there, the
24 rose-colored pilasters. we have the same height,
25 approximately. And we have the concrete cap on top of the
11
1
wall. So in those respects, it's exactly like the wall on
2
Lemay.
3
And I hope you can see that this integrates with
4
the type of design that we have in our subdivision. If you
5
look at the walls of the home there, those are stucco walls
6
and the same color. I think I have a slide of -- can't see
7
it there, but our courtyards in our dwellings also are
8
formed with the same kind of design, pilasters and
9
courtyards, and they look very similar to the wall.
10
So the wall, what you see here on the left, is
11
the wall as it's leaving the south entryway and going to
12
Lemay. So it integrates -- the wall on Lemay integrates the
13
design of our entire subdivision. And that's why we feel
14
that, as part of the Land Use Code, this would be -- the
15
wall as we've proposed on Lemay would encourage innovation
16
of design, but there isn't a design like this in Fort
17
Collins. we think it's unique. We think it's without --
18
without rival, as far as its beauty, its design, its
19
attractiveness, and the way it integrates with our desired
20
development.
21
One of the things that the Land Use Code says is
22
that its intent is to foster the safe and efficient and
23
economic use of the land. One of the problems along this
24
particular part of Lemay has been accidents where cars have
25
gone into residences. And what you're looking at here is
40
12
1 heavy steel, gauge steel, that was installed in this
2 neighborhood on the same side of Lemay as our development,
3 just about a block south of our development.
4 There are more sections of this heavy gauge
5 steel even further south, because of the accidents that have
6 happened along this particular section of road where cars
7 have left the highway and gone into houses. And there has
8 been, in the past, serious injury involved there.
9 We feel one of the benefits of closing our wall
10 from the previous design would be to at least maybe not
11 completely stop an automobile that would leave Lemay but at
12 least it would certainly impede it. So we feel we're adding
13 safety in our design as well from our previous design,
14 because of the problem. So if we can slow down an accident
15 or if we can somehow eliminate an injury because we have the
16 wall there, I think that's a great benefit.
17 Right here is the section of wall where last
18 December we had an accident. This wall has been repaired
19 once already. So we've had an accident on our property with
20 the car leaving the highway and going right through this
21 wall. And this is the particular section of wall where it
22 happened.
23 We feel that as regards to section 3.8 and
24 the -- and our compliance with that section, that our
25 compliance really focuses on the northbound traffic on
13
•
1
Lemay. What I'm showing you here is the southbound lane,
2
and you can see the wall is pretty well obstructed by
3
existing vegetation. And where I am here with this slide is
4
on the north part of the wall. And I'm heading south with
5
the next six slides.
6
So you can see the kind of vegetation that is
7
involved that already exists as we're heading south.
8
This is the south entryway of our development.
9
And you can see where the wall ends a little bit further on
10
the south.
11
One of the things that we tried to do with this
12
design is make it visually interesting. And that's one of
13
the criteria, the standard, that the wall be visually
14
interesting.
15
And we think that it is, and we think this is a
16
depiction of that, where we have pilasters about every 16
17
feet so the wall is in 67 different sections for its entire
18
length. On top of the wall is concrete that is colored, and
19
it looks like tile.
20
And then we have the pilasters that are finished
21
with an elastomeric stucco, and they're rose-colored, and
22
they're -- the colors of the pilasters are -- match the top
23
the of the pilasters and the wall. So we think this is a
24
visually interesting wall because although it follows the
25
property line of our development, you can see that it curves
14
1 along with the curves of Lemay.
2 And you can also see that, maybe not as clearly
3 here, but it does vary in elevation as the sidewalk varies
4 in elevation. Because if you walked along that sidewalk, it
5 would vary in elevation. So our wall also varies in
6 elevation. So our wall goes up and down and follows the
7 curve along South Lemay here.
8 This is a slide to show you some of the existing
9 vegetation in the area of the wall. And how the vegetation
10 integrates with what we are proposing.
11 This shows you some of the additional
12 architectural feature that we have here with the red rock.
13 This is looking back to the south of Lemay.
14 One of the things that we've done to make the
15 wall visually interesting is we've put a logo. This is our
16 logo on the north entryway of our development.
17 This is an address sign on the south area of our
18 development, along with some curvature in the wall to make
19 it visually interesting.
20 And then this is a sign that we have on the
21 north wall of our south entryway. The sign is lit, and it
22 glows at night like a neon sign, and it's quite large. So
23 one of the first things that attracts a person's eye as a
24 motorist going north on South Lemay is this sign. Again,
25 more -- more artistry that we've tried to incorporate within
15
1
the wall.
2
This is a depiction of primarily the additional
3
rock that we've added as an additional architectural feature
4
and some of the mature vegetation that you can see that
5
already exists. And if you look to the right of the wall,
6
that's vegetation close to the wall that we, as developers,
7
have installed.
8
This is an example of how the wall is stepped
9
down or stepped up. It is already existing that way in nine
10
different locations to add variety to the wall.
11
This has already been shown, but this is the
12
area to the north, of our north entryway, as the open area.
13
Approximately 32 feet. And Mr. Barnes already described
14
that very well, I think.
15
This is our south entryway.
16
And I took this picture as a discussion point,
17
if it comes up later, about the word opaque that's found in
18
the standard versus nonopaque. So we can come back to this
19
later, if you want to.
20
Okay. I think that concludes my slides for this
21
portion of it. And hopefully, that will give you a good
22
picture of what we have there with the wall, what we're
23
trying to do, what our concerns are regarding the wall, is
24
that it does comply.
25
We think it complies because it's visually
•
16
1 interesting. We don't believe it creates a tunnel effect.
2 And we think we have the opacity requirements as required by
3 section 3.8, by proposing new sections to be lowered with
4 glass block on top of those sections and then the cap on top
5 of that. We think that would -- that would add even more
6 variety to the wall.
7 And those sections will be in areas where the
8 lowering of the wall would not affect the privacy of our
9 subdivision or the noise as much of our subdivision. We're
10 proposing to do that on the north part of our subdivision,
it where we have a park area. And so we wouldn't be right next
12 to a lot.
13 one of the things I want to point out that is
14 important -- and let me just go back -- let me go forward
15 here.
16 This is a picture on the west side of South
17 Lemay, looking south. And this is a berm, and above the
18 berm to the right there is Harbor Walk Estates. Harbor Walk
19 Estates sits above South Lemay, and I'm not sure of the
20 elevation. It's probably at least 10 or 12 feet to the road
21 above South Lemay.
22 And what I want to point out is the property
23 lines that you saw, the wall that you saw, is on the
24 property line of the lots. We have nine lots that abut
25 South Lemay. Those property lines are right where -- where
•
17
•
1
you see the wall are the property lines.
2
The flow line or the back of the curve of South
3
Lemay is 15 feet from our property line there. 15 feet. We
4
have -- in some places along our wall, we have 15 feet of
5
easement, so a person could be 30 feet from the actual curb
6
of South Lemay, potentially, if -- if they didn't have a
7
wall between them.
8
And it would be equivalent -- if you would look
9
at this slide, it would be equivalent to having the property
10
line right on the sight side of that sidewalk as you see it,
11
to give you a perspective of how we are situated relative to
12
the other side of the street.
•
13
So that -- that shows you how close the property
14
lines are to South Lemay on our side. That's why -- why we
15
need a wall with as much opaqueness as possible.
16
Okay. I think that concludes my presentation.
17
Do you have any questions?
18
CHAIRMAN COLTON: I don't think we have any
19
questions right now. We've had the suggestion that we take
20
a quick break to stretch your legs and so forth. So we'll
21
be back in ten minutes, and we'll hear from other folks.
22
Thanks.
23
(Recess.)
24
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Welcome back to the
25
Planning and Zoning Board meeting. It's now time for
•
ou
1 neighborhood input. And is there one organized -- are you
2 all together or -- okay. I'll give the four of you up to
3 half an hour to give your presentation. Okay. So when you
4 come forward, please let us know who you are and sign in.
5 MS. McGINNIS: My name's Nancy McGinnis, and I'm
6 president of the Harbor Walk Homeowners Association. And
7 I'm here representing the group and myself. Too loud? Too
8 loud? Can you now?
9 Okay. Well, I appreciate a chance to be here.
10 I've never been to a meeting like this before. Two years
11 ago, my husband and I bought a lot on Harbor Walk Estates,
12 right across the street on Lemay; and before we bought it,
13 we sat up on our lot every night and wanted to see how the
14 traffic on Lemay sounded. And it was really quiet. It was
15 just like we were in the country. And we bought our lot and
16 we built our house. We knew we were on a busy street.
17 It wasn't too long before the wall across the
18 street went up and the development went up. And at that
19 time, the sound level from Lemay really went up. It was as
20 if the cars were going down Lemay, the sound bounced off the
21 wall and came right up. We heard sounds we'd never heard
22 before.
23 And we knew the wall was going to be there, and
24 we tried to put trees and rocks up at our house now that
25 we're living there permanently to help the sound of Lemay
•
19
1
not sound in our house; and furthermore, our whole
2
neighborhood has, for the houses that are down lower on
3
Lemay. And we've tried to block the sound.
4
Well, one morning I was going to school, and I
5
leave, and the fence all looks the same, and when I come
6
home that night, all the open spaces that we've been waiting
7
for the wrought iron to come was filled up with block. It
8
was already done. The whole thing's blocked all the way
9
down.
10
And now in the back of our house, which is clear
11
on the lake, when the cars go down Lemay with their radios
12
playing and everything, you can hear the vibrations in the
13
music clear through our whole house to the back of our
14
house. It's like it's bouncing off the wall and bouncing
15
right into our house.
16
And we knew we'd bought a lot on Lemay. We all
17
did when we bought it. But the level of the noise on Lemay
18
has just gotten more and more. And when the last of the
19
wall was blocked, it was just every sound from down below
20
comes right up all up and down our street.
21
And it's made a tremendous difference in our
22
house. We never heard any sounds, and even with all the --
23
we don't have any windows that open on the front of our
24
house on Lemay, so all of that is through the whole house to
25
the back where our bedroom is. And as the cars go by and
20
1 the music's playing in the cars, we can hear it clear
2 through our house now.
3 And I wouldn't usually come to a meeting like
4 this, but I really, really feel that the extra block that
5 blocked that wall has made the sound much, much worse at my
6 house, and I know my neighbors down the street has heard the
7 same thing. It's just as if all the traffic on Lemay
8 bounces off the wall and comes up. And it's like we're in
9 the middle of the city; even though we sort of built in the
10 middle of the city, it wasn't like that before. All the
11 holes in the wall were blocked up.
12 So on behalf of all of us who live up there, I
13 hope you would consider that. I didn't know that you
14 already block a wall when it's a proposal, that you already
15 do the work before anybody has a chance. It's already
16 blocked in, and it's already six foot high. So I appreciate
17 you listening to me, and hope you'll consider what I had to
18 say. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Thank you.
20 MS. O'DELL: Hi. I'm Corky O'Dell. I live on
21 Harbor Walk Estates as well, right up above the -- Lemay.
22 And I have some packets to hand out to you, and then I'll go
23 through them, and I also have some for you.
24 This is unusual for me to be on this side of the
25 microphone. I served on your Board for eight years and
21
•
1
served as the chairperson for two years, so I really
2
appreciate the time and effort you put into this, and I
3
appreciate you letting us have an opportunity to speak to
4
you.
5
First of all, I want to go through a little bit
6
of the history of the wall and our neighborhood and how it
7
relates to the wall.
8
We -- first, I want to stress that this is not a
9
payback in any way. It's not a neighborhood feud. We -- we
10
were turned down for a sound wall ourselves several years
11
ago, but this is in no way any retribution for that. It's
12
only to just ask you to please approve the old plan, the
•
13
original plan, and not allow this new amendment to go
14
through, and I'll cite the reasons why.
15
This was an issue about three and a half years
16
ago, and at that time, as I mentioned, we weren't homeowners
17
at that point. However, the developer in our neighborhood
18
association did propose a sound wall, which I, as mentioned,
19
was turned down.
20
At that time, we were also given assurances of
21
what the wall across the street would look like. And how it
22
would impact us. Because there was an approved plan at that
23
time for the Greens at Collindale.
24
And what that plan was -- and I will show that
25
to you in just a minute -- was, as defined earlier, was
22
1 basically some solid section and then some open sections of
2 wrought iron with the vegetation behind the wall which would
3 soften the effect of the wall. So even though this has been
4 referred to you as a minor amendment, to us, there's nothing
5 minor about it at all, and I think noise is certainly one of
6 the major issues for us.
7 So anyway, I'll go through the history. It's
8 important to understand the Greens fence was designed and
9 approved as it was, why it was designed that way. And what
10 we have here is a chronology that has, side -by -side, Harbor
11 Walk Estates, which is our neighborhood, and the Greens at
12 Collindale and where the different approvals and proposals
13 were made during that time frame.
14 The developer of the Greens objected to the
15 Harbor Walk Estates sound abatement wall, and Planning and
16 Zoning Board denied it. In that process, Mr. Little, who at
17 that point was representing the Greens at Collindale, touted
18 his design as the right way to design a fence, because it
19 was attractive but would not reflect noise and did not
20 create that air of exclusiveness and separateness that he
21 said that a solid wall would create.
22 And this is our reason also. There's a letter
23 from Mr. Little, right after the chronology, and his
24 feelings about our wall at that point. And he said
25 something about, it's unfortunate for them if this wall were
23
1
to increase the level of traffic noise as a result of a
2
ricochet effect from Lemay traffic. And then he said that
3
our wall should have breaks in it, a short wall directly in
4
front of the housing units and then open, using wrought
5
iron, connecting each solid section. Exactly what he
6
originally proposed, he was asking that we do as well.
7
The Greens design of alternating solid masonry
8
and metal pickets was approved, but when it was time for
9
construction, they blatantly disregarded the approved design
10
and built, essentially, a solid wall. So in the summer of
11
1998, as Nancy mentioned, we noticed increased traffic
12
noise. And the developer at -- or the builder at that point
13
had constructed a wall which had some openings in it but not
14
as many as had been originally designed.
15
Last winter, interestingly, on President's Day
16
weekend, starting on a Friday afternoon and finishing on
17
Monday afternoon, the remaining sections that had been left
18
open were filled in. And so the day after the President's
19
Day weekend, we complained.
20
The developer was notified that he was in
21
violation, and I came in and asked for an amendment to his
22
PUD. The building inspector denied the amendment request,
23
citing the land use -- citing land use. The Greens at
24
Collindale -- let's see. Excuse me.
25
Anyway, the Land Use Code is written here,
24
1 Section 2.2.10(a) and 3.8.11(1). The developer then made a
2 second amendment request with an alternative fence design,
3 which we're seeing this evening -- I'm sorry. A second one,
4 I don't know what that design request was, but it also was
5 denied.
6 And then they were cited for a zoning violation
7 because they were not in compliance with their approved
8 plan; and then the Planning Director referred, which I
9 believe was the second plan, to the Planning and Zoning
10 Board, and that's why we're here tonight.
11 Next, I'd like you to look at the approved
12 landscape plan, and that's this. And I have highlighted the
13 sections. The bigger one is the approved PUD. The smaller
14 one is the plan that they're proposing right now. I've
15 highlighted sections along there. The pink sections on both
16 plans correspond to solid wall. The green sections on both
17 plans correspond to open wall.
18 And so you can see that the approved plan and
19 the one that's in effect right now had considerably more
20 open sections and an opportunity, you'll see, that there was
21 a lot of plantings behind the open sections to give the wall
22 a very nice, softer look than the solid wall that you saw on
23 the slides earlier.
24 Also, I have a letter from Linda Ripley that's a
25 little bit further back in your packet. V.F. Ripley and
25
•
1
Associates. And she said that she feels the original plan
2
was very explicit about where the open sections were and the
3
solid wall sections were to be located and the dimensions of
4
those. So I don't think there was any question about what
5
was originally proposed and approved.
6
So what we see is a drastic reduction in the
7
open sections of the fence. Plus no opportunity for
8
landscaping within the fence to soften the look of the
9
fence.
10
And I've given -- on the -- I've also given you
11
a copy of the Code sections that we would like to cite in
12
the Land Use Code, and the first one is under the LUC; the
13
only standard for judging a minor amendment is that the
14
amendment must continue to comply with the standards of this
15
Land Use Code or at least to the extent of its original
16
compliance.
17
So we have to compare the proposed amendment to
18
the LUC provisions that speak about fences. So I want to
19
look at some of the ones more directly applicable and the
20
only ones used by staff.
21
The first one is 3.8.11(a) concerning fences.
22
And it says, the purpose of this standard is to avoid the
23
tunnel effect along arterial streets, and several design
24
suggestions are given. There's not one mandatory
25
requirement. It's not required to be solid; it's not
W
1 required to be nonsolid. However, we want to not have that
2 tunnel effect.
3 Proportion. Means a maximum 50 feet of solid
4 fence for every 75 feet fence link. And this is the
5 worst -case example that in no instance should be exceeded.
6 And it is a minimum standard according to LUC, section
7 1.2.0.
8 The proportion of 50 feet to 75 feet, so 50 feet
9 of solid wall and 25 feet of open wall is two -to -three, or
10 66 percent. And we can see that the approved plan, if you
11 look back -- you can probably find it faster than I do.
12 They say approved fence, proposed fence, and proposed fence,
13 whether you count glass block as solid or not solid.
14 The approved fence has 66 percent open and 34
15 percent solid, exactly what the Code requires. The proposed
16 fence is more like 97 percent solid and three percent open.
17 And even if you consider glass block as not being solid,
18 which to me, means it's pretty darn solid if you try to
19 punch it, the solid section would be only 68 percent and the
20 glass block section 32 percent. So again, far below what is
21 required in the Land Use Code.
22 I want to look at some other applicable sections
23 of the Land Use Code. Section 3-2-1(h), landscape elements
24 must enhance visual continuity between neighborhoods.
25 3.2.1(n), alternative landscape plans must
27
1
enhance neighborhood continuity and connectivity. I -- Mr.
2
Watson showed us how well the fence connects with the fence
3
inside his development proposal he -- proposed development,
4
but it does not connect with the rest of the neighborhood.
5
3.5.1(b), landscape plan must be architectural
6
compatible -- architecturally compatible, achieved with
7
similar relationships to the street. This is totally
8
separating the Greens from Lemay, is very dissimilar from
9
directly across the street where we live.
10
3.6.2(e) recognizes the desire to buffer
11
nonconforming lots, do not meet the depth requirements of
12
the City. What it says is it has to be -- the depth
•
13
requirement needs to be, I believe, 150 feet, and because
14
this doesn't meet that requirement, it needs to be buffered
15
in some way, but it doesn't prescribe a solid fence as a
16
solution.
17 So even if you believe that the Land Use Code
18 should be interpreted as the way staff did and that this
19 amendment complies, you cannot ignore the fact that the
20 original design exceeded the Land Use Code standards and
21 that under the minor amendment section, any change to the
22 approved plan would have to comply at least to the same
23 extent. And this amendment does not improve the fence
24 design, and therefore, does not meet the minor amendment
25 standards.
0
28
1 And as far as the comprehensive plan, if you
2 look at -- again, it's in the Code section that I was just
3 referring to a little while ago. Principles and policies,
4 neighborhoods, page 145.
5 Apply to -- it says, they may be -- have
6 relevance to existing neighborhood if there is an
7 opportunity to in -fill, update, or improve particular
8 situations. So this is an in -fill project, and it does not
9 relate in the same way to our neighborhood, as our
10 neighborhood is.
11 Residential developments, the next -to -last
12 section. The intent is for residential developments to form
13 neighborhoods that evolve to be part of the broader
14 community, avoiding separate subdivisions or a free-standing
15 individual complex attached to the community mainly by an
16 entrance for auto traffic.
17 Then again on existing neighborhoods. The City
18 will continue to ensure that neighbors will be advised of
19 any changes and be requested to comment. Stated preferences
20 of neighbors will be considered in determining acceptable
21 intensity and character of in -fill and redevelopment. In
22 determining the acceptability of changes to parcels of land
23 adjacent to existing residential developments, the adjacent
24 residential preferences will be balanced with community -wide
25 interests.
29
1
And then in the last one, for parcels under 20
2
acres, such in -fill and redevelopment activity will be
3
supported if designed to complement and extend the positive
4
qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings
5
in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and
6
any identifiable style, proportion, shape, relationship to
7
street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created
8
by doors, windows, projections, and recesses.
9
The Land Use Code says that a minor amendment
10
cannot be approved if it changes the character of the
11
development, and we believe this change, this proposed
12
amendment, drastically changes the character. There's no
13
openness, no continuity, no connectivity that was so
14
important in the process of approving it. It walls off the
15
subdivision and separates it from the rest of the
16
neighborhood; and it seems very exclusive in nature,
17
contrary to the first design, which I think was more in line
18
with the community vision of connectivity of neighborhoods.
19
And in addition, there's no softening of the facade with
20
landscaping.
21
We've located evidence of a noise study done in
22
1996 when Harbor Walk Estates proposed a sound abatement
23
wall, and these copies came from the Planning Department's
24
file on the Harbor Walk Estates sound wall. The evidence
25
shows two things, and you'll look at these.
all
1 one, the noise level on Lemay is already higher
2 than what the City Code would permit in residential area --
3 use areas. The maximum noise levels allowed under the City
4 Code would be 55 decibels during the day and 50 decibels at
5 night. The study indicated that the noise level to be about
6 68 decibels over any allowable limit, and that's probably
7 what Nancy McGinnis is hearing with those thumping cars.
8 And second, the noise will reflect off a solid
9 wall in an upward direction, right at the Harbor Walk
10 Estates homes. And you can see that, in this diagram,
11 particularly, where there's a wall here, which would be just
12 like the Greens at Collindale, and then the projected wave
13 is up towards our homes.
14 And I really ask you to not allow this wall,
15 which has already increased the noise to our homes,
16 especially after you disapproved our wall, which would have
17 given us some protection. And it would not be fair to
18 worsen the situation for us and protect them from the same
19 noise.
20 Visually, we believe that the wall proposed will
21 not be attractive or visually interesting as required by the
22 City Code -- the Code sections we referred to earlier.
23 Furthermore, the shorter sections are not different enough
24 from the solid wall to create any variety. The wall will
25 contribute to the canyon or tunnel effect that the City is
31
1 trying to avoid.
2 The Greens fence design was approved before the
3 final ruling on the Harbor Walk Estates sound abatement wall
4 and prior to anyone living at Harbor Walk. When purchasing
5 in such a unique location, we were all curious as to what
6 would surround our properties. We were assured that -- the
7 quality and attractiveness of the Greens project across the
8 street when we saw the plan. We were also comforted that
9 the fence approved for the Greens would only minimally
10 reflect traffic noise because it was mostly open fencing.
11 Having made our purchases and made our permanent homes here,
12 we believe it is unfair at this point to face these kinds of
13 things.
U
14 When you review the evidence, including the
15 history, interpretation, questions about the Code
16 provisions, and the comprehensive plan policies and the
17 negative effect on the character of the Greens on our
18 neighborhood, it's clear that the requested amendment should
19 be denied and that the Greens should be required to build
20 the fence that has already been approved.
21 Thank you. And I would like to, if I can -- I
22 don't think we've run over our time, I'd like to have a few
23 minutes, if Mr. Watson is able to -- if Mr. Watson is
24 allowed a rebuttal, I'd like a couple of minutes myself.
25 One thing I would like to add in response to Mr.
�1
U
32
1 Barnes' presentation, he mentioned that there was no mention
2 of a fence during the neighborhood meetings, and probably
3 because there wasn't a problem with the fence. The way it
4 was proposed was excellent.
5 Also, Mr. Watson's presentation -- again, I
6 mentioned that, certainly his wall is consistent within his
7 own small subdivision but not within the larger area.
8 And he also showed us quite well with his slides
9 how close the wall is to the sidewalk, not allowing any kind
10 of greenery or buffering of the solid wall fence.
11 If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer
12 them.
13
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
Do you have someone else in
14
your party who --
15
MS. O'DELL: No,
I'm it.
16
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
Oh, you're it. Okay. Well,
17
why don't you go ahead. Conclude
your -- and see if anyone
is
else wants to --
19
MS. O'DELL: Unless
our neighbors --
20
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
All right.
21
MS. O'DELL: Our
neighbors here. I'd like to
22
mention that there are six
homes up there right now and four
23
of us are here tonight. I
think that's pretty good
24
representation of our neighborhood. Thank you.
25
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
Okay. Not seeing anyone else
0
33
1 in the public, I'll close the public input. What's that?
2 Yeah. I'd like to go ahead and let the applicant give some
3 rebuttal, if he would like; and if you bring up any new
4 issues, we'll let the neighbors get some surrebuttal. We'll
5 give you up to like five minutes.
6 MR. WATSON: I guess I'll just refer back to the
7 slide. How would you like to have your property line right
8 there on the west side of that sidewalk on the right of it?
9 That's what we're dealing with. You can't compare an apple
10 with an orange.
11 The comparison was us versus them, and their
12 situation is a lot different than our situation. And
13 there's different reasons that their wall was denied. I
14 don't know what they were. I wasn't involved with that.
15 But I do know what we have today. And if you
16 look at that sidewalk, and we put our property line right on
17 the west side of that, that's how close we are to Lemay.
18 We're within 15 feet. And let me ask you or ask her, would
19 she like to have her back yard open to the traffic on Lemay?
20 And we all -- you know, we all want as much
21 noise -- freedom from the noise as possible. I think they
22 have a distinct advantage. They have an earthen berm. And
23 as far as I know, just because there's some purported, some
24 alleged study done that shows how sound went off -- went off
25 a wall, that doesn't prove anything -- that doesn't prove
34
1 anything to me. Because there wasn't any specific study
2 done on our wall. She referred to a study done in 1996.
3 Well, that doesn't -- that's not a study about the present
4 situation.
5 But I just -- the advantage they have is they
6 have an earthen berm that -- to the south that's about six
7 feet high. As you go north on Lemay, it gets to about 12 or
8 15 feet high above the roadway. And then they have about a
9 34-, 35-foot street between the berm and their property
10 line. And then they have their setback. So there's a lot
11 of distance between them and the noise. And I don't think
12 you can point to an old study and say, this is the way it
13 is, because our wall never existed at that time.
14 So I think, as far as the issues of
15 connectivity, I'm going to -- I'm not exactly sure what that
16 means, but we have a hundred foot right-of-way on Lemay
17 separating their subdivision from our subdivision. We have
18 a major arterial separating their subdivision from our
19 subdivision.
20 And what -- what would the connectivity be
21 between their subdivision and our subdivision? What kind of
22 transition are we supposed to provide to connect their
23 development with our development? When we're separated by a
24 hundred -foot major artery in the city of Fort Collins with a
25 lot of heavy traffic. So I don't understand where we've
35
•
1
created a problem with connectivity.
2
And as far as the initial design goes, the
3
initial design was a mistake. We had -- we had too much --
4
too much open area there, because after re-evaluation and
5
the safety situation, it makes a lot of sense to have that
6
wall closed, just from that standpoint.
7
If you look back at the slide I had regarding the
8
heavy -gauge steel, that's no minor approach to safety
9
issue. It's a -- it's a huge, heavy -gauge steel fence right
10
in front of a residence. And I can prove that we've already
11
had an accident on our wall. And if that was open and it
12
was next to a residence, somebody could be killed. So, you
13
know, I -- the wall isn't going to prevent an accident, but
14
it may slow a vehicle down. It may prevent injury. That's
15
all I'm saying.
16
And just to keep in mind the existing standard
17
of 3.8.11, it does not require walls to be open. The
18
standard as quoted was -- the quote wasn't finished, as far
19
as the standard goes. Because the standard allows for a
20
proportion thereof.
21
As far as how much nonopaque is there in relation
22
to opaque. The standard does not say that part of the fence
23
has to be open. It says part of it -- it says that a fence
24
could be nonopaque versus opaque. But it doesn't say that a
25
fence has to be open. It does not -- the word "open" does
•
36
1 not appear
there.
And
there's
a big
difference between
2 "open" and
"opaque"
or
"open"
and "nonopaque."
3 I'm curious how all the neighbors weren't
4 concerned about the initial design when, if their -- if
5 their house was opposite a solid section, the sound's going
6 to rebound off of solid section and hit their house if
7 they're opposite a solid section.
8 So, you know, if -- if that solved the problem,
9 then it might make sense. But the wall had -- on the
10 initial design, it had solid sections as well. So that
11 would still have created, according to them, a noise
12 problem, and why didn't -- why didn't they protest it then?
13 Because if there's any solid section, there would be a noise
14 problem.
15 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Mr. Watson, if you could wrap
16 up.
17 MR. WATSON: Okay. And she mentioned a letter
18 from Linda Ripley about something, and I -- she didn't refer
19 to who that was. I don't know who that is. Okay.
20 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay.
21 MR. WATSON: Any questions?
22 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Why don't you have a seat, and
23 then we'll ask all the questions together. Thank you.
24 Okay. And if the neighbors would like a couple
25 of minutes. Just try to respond to the things he brought up
37
•
1
and not previous information.
2
MS. O'DELL: First of all on the issue of, the
3
safety issue, this is quite a bit different than the
4
sections that are further down on Lemay. There's a much
5
sharper curve there. Some of the time, particularly at the
6
southernmost section of Lemay, where there's that larger
7
barrier, it's from cars that are traveling southbound and
8
actually don't make the turn and go all the way across the
9
northbound traffic into the fence. That wouldn't happen in
10
this situation because there's a median on Lemay.
11
Also, the one accident that did happen was in
12
January 24th, 1999. It was an older woman, 74-year-old
•
13
woman, who slid on the ice. That could happen anywhere in
14
town.
15
Linda Ripley is a landscape architect and has
16
her own firm in Fort Collins.
17
Also, the -- as far as the -- the graphs I was
18
using, it was from Armando Ballofet's presentation. He's an
19
engineer, sound, specializes in sound and noise. However,
20
this did not come from -- he did not create this. This is
21
from the Housing and Urban Development, the Noise
22
Guidebook. So it is a standard -- standardly-accepted way
23
to see how noise bounces off solid walls.
24
And another reason why we didn't object to the
25
original wall is because none of us lived there at that
38
1 point. That was before any of us moved in. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Thank you. Okay. Now it's
3 time for questions from the Board.
4 MS. MEYER: One of my concerns is the sidewalk,
5 where they want to put the wrought -iron gate. I have a
6 question about that. Why do they need a gate on the
7 sidewalk? Does anybody have an answer to that? Bill, can
8 you address that?
9 MR. BARNES: I'm not sure if they need a gate.
10 I'm not aware if they do or not.
11 MS. MEYER: Then why do we want one?
12 MR. WATSON: The purpose of that was to allow
13 pedestrian traffic from the development to a sidewalk.
14 MS. MEYER: I understand that, but why are we
15 putting a gate across it? They talk about putting a gate on
16 there, and I'm trying to figure out --
17 MR. WATSON: Oh, it's a -- the design is a
18 wrought -iron picket design with a gate as part of that,
19 within that -- within that section of picket. So the gate
20 would be -- look like the wrought -iron design as well. But
21 you can open and close a portion of it. So it would look
22 just like --
23 MS. MEYER: I understand what it's going to look
24 like. Why does the gate have to be there?
25 MR. WATSON: If the gate wasn't there, then the
39
i
people that wanted to enter
the subdivision that were on the
2
sidewalk would have to walk
around to the north entry.
3
MS. MEYER: So you can't just leave it without
4
the wrought iron? You have
to put the wrought iron there?
5
You can't just leave this hole
in the fence so people can
6
enter it without the wrought
iron there? Is there a safety
7
issue here or is there some
--
a
MR. WATSON: It's
a design issue, that a wrought
9
iron design would look much
more attractive than just a
10
hole, just an open area there.
11
MS. MEYER: Okay.
12
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
Ms. O'Dell, on the -- you've
13
got a quote from Mr. Little.
I'm just wondering where you
14
got that quote. It sounded
like a quote.
i5
MS. O'DELL: There was a letter from him in your
16
packet. Sorry. It'll take
me a second to find it.
17
CHAIRMAN COLTON:
Okay. I'm looking through
is
here.
19 MS. O'DELL: It's the third one down. I talked
20 about having breaks in the wall and things like that; is
21 that correct? And I said it would be unfortunate for them
22 if this wall were to increase the level of traffic noise.
23 Is that the quote?
24 Okay. That was a letter that Mr. Little wrote on
25 behalf of Landsource, LLC, to the City of Fort Collins
•
M
1 Planning and Zoning Board in response to our proposed wall.
2 Sound wall.
3 CHAIRMAN COLTON: 'Okay. The way you said the
4 quote, I thought it was -- he was talking about the wall or
5 fence on his development. Not on the Harbor Walk side.
6 MS. O'DELL: Right. I'm sorry. He did -- and I
7 wish I had the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board
8 meeting at that time. He did, in his testimony, indicate
9 that our wall should be the same as their wall, with breaks
10 in it. So he was touting the wall that they proposed
11 originally.
12 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Mr. Watson, please.
14 MR. WATSON: Yes, sir.
15 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I have to agree with
16 Jennifer, to try and understand. I'm going to probe more
17 why the gate -- why that opening has wrought iron pickets
18 and your other design contained them throughout.
19 Is that a carryover to the old design, or is that
20 just something you want to add in, but yet you tout solid
21 walls, stepped, but this area is -- why it's going with the
22 gate, and I'm struggling with it, and I'm struggling with
23 all -- some other aspects, but I want to focus on this one.
24 MR. WATSON: Well, it was part of our design.
25 We thought it would look attractive. The City, to the -- I
41
1
believe it's -- could be north of that particular area where
2
the sidewalk is, has required us to open that for
3
maintenance.
4
Originally, the sidewalk was designed to allow
5
the City of Fort Collins to maintain our water valve that
6
they have there. And so the City required that we couldn't
7
close that in. And so we felt it would look attractive and
8
it would be -- just an attraction that had a metal picket
9
there. We can't close it off because of the City. That's
10
their requirement.
11
And the sidewalk is going to be part of access
12
to that water valve, and so we -- we thought if we have to
.
13
leave that open, then let's put a gate in there so
14
pedestrians from our subdivision can access the sidewalk
15
without going out through one of the entryways that is used
16
for vehicular traffic, because there's no other pedestrian
17
access in that area. We have a sidewalk on the southern
18
entry that accesses the subdivision, but on the northern
19
part, we don't have a sidewalk that -- on the north
20
entryway. We just have curb and -- curb and gutter.
21
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I'm still struggling with
22
it, but I'll let that go and give a view later on it.
23
I want to talk about continuity, similarity, not
24
just your development, but similar developments, south,
25
north, east, and west.
59A
1 And you did a very good job comparing and
2 contrasting to your development. I'll compliment you on
3 that. However, was there any thought and consideration in
4 blending with the rest of the community on Lemay, across,
5 south and north --
6 MR. WATSON: Blending with the community?
7 MR. GAVALDON: Blending the fence -- I call it a
8 fence versus a wall. It's a fence. Can you explain why you
9 did not consider such features?
10 MR. WATSON: Well, our subdivision is -- we've
11 tried -- you know, if you -- I'll go back to the Land Use
12 Code that encourages innovative design.
13 MR. GAVALDON: I agree with you there.
14 MR. WATSON: Okay. So this is part of our
15 innovative design, having a wall there rather than a fence.
16 Because it integrates with the Mediterranean style of our
17 units there. It all ties together. And I don't -- I don't
18 know how we can connect with Harbor Walk, which is elevated
19 above Lemay, with some of our design -- go ahead. I'm
20 sorry. Go ahead.
21 MR. GAVALDON: No, I'm listening, and I'm getting
22 ready for the next one. I hear what you're saying. But how
23 about south?
24 MR. WATSON: How it would connect with the
25 south?
43
1
MR. GAVALDON: Yeah, blend in and show
2
continuity? Because south, at the Golden Meadows, have
3
similar constraints you have. Unfortunately, they're on a
4
curve, and that causes accidents because there's no median.
5
However, you have median relative where they have -- you
6
have similar constraints, but your design is such a sharp
7
contrast. Was there any thought given in blending?
8
MR. WATSON: Well, I think each subdivision has
9
its own characteristics. And one of the -- one of the
10
things is to maintain the characteristic of our subdivision,
11
and we do that with the wall.
12
And the southern part, our residences would butt
13
up against the back yards of the Golden Meadows residences.
14
So the wall -- the wall isn't even an issue there. Am I
15
misunderstanding your question?
16
MR. GAVALDON: Well, if you look at the site map,
17
you have your subdivision. You have your type of design.
18
Unfortunately, got a guardrail there. Whoops. We've got
19
that.
20
M.R. WATSON: Okay. That's south of our
21
subdivision.
22
MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
23
MR. WATSON: Okay.
24
MR. GAVALDON: And you have the type of fencing
25
there, and yours is very different contrast to it.
0
44
1 MR. WATSON: Yeah.
2 MR. GAVALDON: So I'm just trying to
3 understand --
a MR. WATSON: That is wood, wood fencing, typical
5 to every other subdivision in town. And ours is cinder
6 block and stucco, and we think it's a work,of art. It's a
7 masonry project. I mean, it blends in with our
s subdivision. We're separated by Golden Meadows. There's a
9 street there, an entire street. Just like we're separated
10 by an arterial, South Lemay from Harbor, we're separated by
11 Ticonderoga from the Golden Meadows neighborhood.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Well, thank you very much.
13 I appreciate that.
la CHAIRMAN COLTON: I don't see anyone having a
15 cuestion. But I want -to get discussion going and throw out
16 a few thoughts that are going through my head so we can try
17 to get some resolution.
is Number one, I think compared to some of the
19 fences on the south and so forth, this is much nicer than
20 what they have. So number one, just stand-alone, is this a
21 nice fence? Yeah, it's a nice fence.
22 However, then I start getting into a few other
23 issues, you know, particularly, well, they came in with a
24 plan for one. Now they're changing it, and I think, at
25 least to some degree, you know, members -- people live
45
1
across the street, had some reliance on that fence. And the
2
effect that it would have on their properties. Kind of
3
taking that into effect also.
4
And third, in terms of, does this even meet the
5
Land Use Code or that -- getting back to that section,
6
famous section 3.8.11, as long as a development plan is so
7
amended, continues to comply with the standard of its Land
8
Use Code, at least to the extent of its original compliance.
9
Well, the original plan as submitted obviously
10
complied with new Land Use Code very well. I guess I have
11
some question as to whether the new one complies with the
12
Land Use Code for a couple of reasons.
13
Just, does this one row of blocks change
14
something from being opaque to nonopaque when it's a rather
15
small percentage of the fence. And I guess that just failed
16
my test of, you know, more opaque than nonopaque, I guess.
17
To me, it's still more opaque than it is nonopaque.
18
And secondly, I guess in looking at -- if the
19
information here -- the neighborhood presented on its south,
20
middle, and north is correct, and I think even the applicant
21
said that he was going to have more solid where the houses
22
are and less where the neighborhood area is, so I'm not sure
23
that this fence even meets the two-thirds/one-third
24
rationale, you know, albeit a little bit hard to enforce, as
25
Peter -- as shown at our work session the other day, or
•
OR
i interpret, I guess. I guess I would look at these three
2 different sections as each needing to be
3 two-thirds/one-third, and you can't have most of the area
4 considered opaque or nonopaque in one area and the other
5 places all be opaque.
6 So I guess I'm having a hard time finding that
7 it actually meets this 2.2.1, in that it -- I guess I don't
8 believe that it really meets the criteria in 3.8.11
9 sufficiently, although, like I said, I think it's better
10 than what is in the surrounding area and would have met the
11 original code if they would've brought it in that way, but
12 they didn't. So I guess that's kind of where I'm at.
13 MS. CARPENTER: I'm ready to make a motion. I
14 move denial of the request for a minor amendment based on
15 the grounds that it does not meet the minor amendment
16 standards in 2.2.10; specifically, I believe that this is
17 not as -- what is the exact wording -- it is not in the
18 same -- it is in less compliance with the Land Use Code than
19 it was originally.
20 I also believe it doesn't meet 2.2.10(2)(d). I
21 think this does result in a change in character. I think
22 there is a major, a material difference, in open fencing
23 with landscaping and in a solid wall. So I don't believe it
24 meets that.
25 I also think it is not as compliant as far as
47
•
1
noise goes, which is 3.4.4, and I'm really having problems
2
swallowing glass block, one row of glass block across the
3
top of a solid wall making a nonopaque surface or fence as
4
stated in 3.8.1 -- point 11.
5
So for those reasons, I move that we deny the
6
minor amendment.
7
MR. GAVALDON: I'm going to second the motion.
8
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Other discussion,
9
comments? Jerry.
10
MR. GAVALDON: Well, I'd like to share my
11
thoughts that -- and observations as very similar to what
12
the neighborhood has spelled out as well as what my peer
.
13
board member, Jennifer, has done a very good job in
14
presenting, because I do agree with that and I feel that
15
what was presented is more in compliance originally, and as
16
well as my concern is the -- is how the open area with the
17
sidewalk and gate -- but that's a nonissue right now,
18
because there's major issues related to this. So I'm going
19
to support the denial of this minor amendment.
20
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. I guess I made most of
21
my comments before, and I guess I understand why the
22
applicant was trying to do what they were doing, but on the
23
other hand, I guess -- I think they should have done their
24
marketing a little better and understood that being that
25
close to Lemay with an open picket fence was going to cause
•
M
1 some people to think about -- twice about going there and
2 maybe their values won't be as high, but that's not for us
3 to -- that's not one of our roles, to make sure you can get
4 the maximum value out of those properties. So . . .
5 MS. CARPENTER: I'd like to address a couple of
6 other things that I didn't address in the motion. One is
7 the safety issue, the cinder block walls being safer. I
8 come from a city in which cinder block walls are what
9 everyone puts up, and I've seen cars go through them, and
10 they don't slow down cars at all. In fact, they may create
11 their own safety issue problems, in that they're heavier and
12 they get thrown around. So I don't think the safety issue
13 is valid.
14 But I also would encourage the developer to put
15 in the kind of landscaping along the open pieces of this
16 fence that will allow for the privacy. I think if you use
17 large enough landscaping, I know it costs a little more to
18 begin with, but if you use large enough landscaping, it does
19 two things. It takes care of the privacy issue and it also
20 helps with noise absorption. So I think that's something
21 that you can look at that will mitigate the problem that you
22 have with that.
23 MS. MEYER: I have a problem with the noise part
24 of your motion. I'll vote for it, but the noise on Lemay is
25 noise on Lemay, and I'm not convinced that putting this
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
fence up has created the noise problem. Maybe there's just
more traffic on Lemay. And I have -- I'll support it, but I
just want it on record that I don't think the fence is the
cause of the noise. I think Lemay is the cause of the
noise.
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Okay. Could we have roll
call, please.
THE CLERK: Carpenter.
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
THE CLERK: Meyer.
MS. MEYER: Yes.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
THE CLERK: Colton.
CHAIRMAN COLTON: Yes.
Okay. That concludes that item
for coming.
(Matter concluded.)
Thank you all
50
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6 the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter of the
7 application by Landsource, LLC, and recorded on Thursday,
8 July 1, 1999, at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins,
9 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my
10 supervision to the foregoing 49 pages; that said transcript
11 is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so
12 taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this llth day of August, 1999.
17
18
19
h'; Cason T: Meadors
20 yt`;a r Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
Via%••• 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
21 �`� .•,•.•,,,: a' Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
F _ n .. C�"���" (970) 482-1506
22
My commission expires January 6, 2001.
23
24
25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 1, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
Other Business
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
•
U