HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/07/1999 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE JULY 1, 1999 PL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25
DATE: September 7, 1999
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Bob Blanchard
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the July 1, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny a
Minor Amendment to the Greens at Collindale PUD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the City Code
and Charter and, after consideration, (1)remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board
or(2) uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On July 1, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a minor amendment to the Greens at
Collindale PUD that had been referred to them by the Current Planning Director. This was a request
to revise the design of the fence/wall that was approved on the west side of the development adjacent
to Lemay Avenue. The new fence would be a combination of five foot high solid masonry sections
and 45 inch high masonry walls with a row of glass block. There would also be a 32 foot 'Aide
section of open wrought iron fencing in the northern section of the fence/wall.
On July 15, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office alleging that the
Planning and Zoning Board"(1)did notproperly interpret nor properly apply relevant law(Land Use
Code) and (2) considered substantially false or grossly misleading evidence from the appellants
opponent,the Harbor Walk Neighbors." The Notice of Appeal was subsequently amended and filed
with the City Clerk on July 23, 1999.
Attachments to this item include:
Notice of Appeal (received July 21, 1999)
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board
Written testimony submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board
Staff response to the appeal
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting
LANDSOURCE, LLC
i July 15, 1999 D
JUL 2 3 = (I
CITY CLERK
City Clerk __...__...
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear City Clerk:
Action Appealed: Denial by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board ("P &Z
Board") on July 1, 1999 of a referred minor amendment by the applicant, LandSource, LLC,
to re-design the wall adjacent to Lemay Ave. at the Greens at Collindale.
William E, Watson, Jr. at 1136 E. Stuart St #4203, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 221-3048
represents the appellant who is LandSource, LLC. The appellant is a party-in-interest
because the appellant is the applicant for the referred minor amendment mentioned above.
The grounds for appeal are that the P &Z Board erred in that the Board: (1) did not properly
interpret nor property apply relevant law (Land Use Code) and (2) considered substantially
false or grossly misleading evidence from the appellants opponent, the Harbor Walk
Neighbors ("HWN").
Following is a summary of facts of the July record on appeal supporting the appellant's
allegations of P&Z Board error.
Harbor Walk Neighbors (HWN) testified to knowing about the wall and its design prior to
construction of the wall by the appellant in the spring of 1998. ( N. McGnnis-"we knew the
wall was going to be there"; C. Odell-there were assurances what the wall looked
like; when purchasing what surrounded mostly open fencing when we saw the plan"; in
reply to Peter Barnes, "proposed fence excellent is why no comments at the
neighborhood meeting."
The appellant asked why HWN did not object to the initial wall design that contained the
solid sections that according to their testimony becomes a source of noise to their 6 homes.
C. Odell replied, " None of us lived there at that point That was before any of us moved in."
However, 4 lots were owned by HWN prior to the wall's approval, and three other HWN lots
were purchased within 60 days of the wall's 10/28/96 approval.
They testified to their knowledge of the wall and its design yet none of the lot owners prior to
10/28/96 had objected to the wall's solid sections.
With this testified-awareness of the original wall's design, why didn't HWN immediately
object to the wall as installed in the spring of 1998? HWN claimed this installation had more
closed sections than allowed by the original design. Yet there was no protest by HWN until
February of 1999 when 16 open sections of the wall were made solid.
Thirty-one sections (approximately 16' per section) of the wall's 67 sections are either north
or south of the HWN property. Of the remaining 36 sections parallel to HWN existing
homes, 4 sections were closed and one section was opened in February of 1999. Yet the
testimony of N. McGinnis was when the last of the wall was blocked, you could hear the
noise through the her whole house. The fact is in February of 1999, parallel to the
McGinnis' home, one section of wall was opened and no sections were closed.
C. Odell is the spouse of M. Sollenberger, the developer of Harbor Walk Estates. I believe
disclosure of this should have been made up front with the P&Z Board. She testified in
general how the wall has caused higher noise levels at her home. However, she lives
opposite the south entryway of the development which has no wall. The design of the
original wall at the south entryway has never changed, and will never be walled
because it is an entryway.
Improper Land Use Code was cited. Code was taken out of content; code was only partially
cited or C. Odell misinterpreted code as follows:
3.8.11 (A) - Partially cited and misinterpreted; 3.2.1. (H) - Of 12 items, only 1 cited, 6 other
items support the appellant; 3.2.1. (N) —misquoted -"connectivity" instead of"continuity";
3.5.1. (B) - Not relevant, refers to buildings; 2.2.10 (A) - This code tests a proposed minor
amendment by its development plan's compliance with the existing Land Use Code (LUC),
rather than testing the minor amendment against some existing "better than" standard.
There is not a compliance differential test, only a compliance test
The Board misinterpreted the code on their motion for denial. The motion referenced 2.2.10
(A). The Board member concluded the minor amendment"is in less compliance with the
LUC than it was originally." Thus testing the minor amendment against the original wall
design rather than testing the development plan with the amended wall design for
compliance with the LUC.
On motion for denial, section 2.2.10 (21D)was referenced. The Board member said the
character of the development changed because the open sections of the wall were made
solid. This error resulted from a misinterpretation of 3.8.11 and the definition of non-opaque
versus open. To be a standard, 3.8.11 must have a literal interpretation of what constitutes
"non-opaque." An example of non-opaque is glass block. Motion for denial referenced
section 3.4.4. This code was misinterpreted and not even relevant to this case because it
refers to noise "generated on the property.' Thank you.
Sincerely,
William E. Watson, Jr.
President, Preferred Capital Management, Inc.
Managing Member, LandSource, LLC
1136 E. Stuart Street#4203
Fort Collins, CO 80526
(970) 221-3048
T
ITEM NO. 5
MEETING DATE 7/1/99
C_ 4A STAFF Bob Blanchard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: The Greens At Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
APPLICANT: LandSource LLC
1136 E. Stuart Street
Suite 4203
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: LandSource LLC
1136 E. Stuart Street
Suite 4203
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has requested 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Greens at Collindale PUD, File #8-96A, received final approval on October 28, 1996.
On February 18, 1999, the applicant submitted a minor amendment request to redesign
the fence/wall adjacent to Lemay Avenue. Based on neighborhood issues regarding the
proposed change, the request has been referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for final
approval as permitted in the Land Use Code.
The approved fence/wall consists of alternating patterns of 16.5 feet of solid masonry
panels and 16.5 feet of open metal pickets with each section separated by 6 foot tall
masonry columns. The proposed fence/wall consists of 16 foot sections of 5 foot high solid
masonry panels with a stone cap top, separated by 6 foot tall masonry columns. Selected
sections of the fence/wall will be shorter (45 inches) and include a row of glass block
between the masonry panel and the stone cap. 32 feet of the northern section (north of
the northern access) will be open with wrought iron fencing.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)2-11-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The Greens at Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
July 1, 1999 P &Z Meeting
Page 2 J.
1. Backoround:
The zoning and land uses surrounding the PUD are:
N: POL; Collindale Public Golf Course
S: RL; Single Family residential (Golden Meadows subdivision)
E: POL; Collindale Public Golf Course
W: RL; Single family residential (Harbor Walk PUD) and Warren Dam/Lake
2. Approved PUD
The Greens at Collindale PUD was given final PUD approval by the Planning and Zoning
Board on October 28, 1996. The approved project included 33 single family lots (to be
developed with 16 duplexes and 1 detached home) on 6.42 acres. The gross density was
5.14 dwelling units per acre. Since approval, three applications for minor amendments
have been submitted. These include minor changes to selected building elevations
(approved), a request to detach two duplex buildings turning them into single family
detached structures (approved) and this request to modify the fence/wall along Lemay
Avenue.
3 Minor Amendment Reauest T
The Land Use Code permits minor amendment requests to approved plans originally
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board provided:
a) There is less than 1% increase or decrease in the number of dwelling units;
b) Any increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use
or structure does not change the character of the development;
c) Any change in the housing mix or use mix ration that complies with the requirement of
the zone district does not change the character of the development; or,
d) There is no change in the character of the development.
The requested minor amendment is to modify the design of the fencetwall that separates
the development from the Lemay Avenue right-of-way. Staff has determined that the
requested amendment does not change the character of the development as it was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Greens at Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
July 1, 1999 P &Z Meeting
Page 3
The approved fence/wall consists of alternating patterns of 16.5 feet of solid masonry
panels and 18 feet of open metal pickets with each section separated by 6 foot tall
masonry columns (see attached detail). The redesigned fence/wall eliminates the open
metal pickets and includes shorter sections (45") which include a 'row of glass block
between the solid panel and the stone cap:
Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code permits minor amendments to be: .
approved, approved with conditions or denied administratively by the Director and
may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments
may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so
amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Land Use Code, at least
to the extent of its original compliance (so as to preclude any greater deviation from
the standards of this Land Use Code by reason of such amendments).
This same section also allows the Director to refer a minor amendment to the Planning and
Zoning Board. The Board's decision constitutes a final decision subject only to appeal to
the City Council.
{. The standard to judge the requested changes against is found in Section 3.8.11 (1) of the
Land Use Code:
If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually
interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect by integrating architectural
elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation into the design,
varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of fence
lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In no instance, however, shall a fence
or wall be opaque for more than fifty (50) feet for every seventy-five (75) feet of
length, or proportion thereof.
The use of the term "proportion," has been interpreted as applying a ratio of 2 (opaque
length) to 3 (overall length) over the entire length of a fence or wall when reviewing
development proposals. Rather than strictly apply a standard of 50 feet out of every 75
feet in length, the opaque distance can be measured as a percentage of the overall length
of a fence/wall (67%). Use of the term "opaque" indicates that as long as the fence/wall
structure includes elements that allow light to penetrate through the structure for at least
1/3 of its length, it can be found to be in compliance.
The property frontage along Lemay Avenue is approximately 1,150 feet. The proposed
fence/wall includes all of this distance minus the two approved access points. Assuming
the length of the fence/wall subject to this criteria is limited to that portion that is parallel
The Greens at Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
July 1, 1999 P &Z Meeting
Page 4
to Lemay Avenue, the total length of the fence/wall under consideration is approximately
970 feet
There are two features in the design of the fence/wall that have been determined to not be
opaque. The first is the open area required by the Utilities Department This section is 32
feet long with wrought iron pickets which clearly allows visibility from the public right-of-way
into the development The second area includes those sections that are limited to 45" in
height These shorter sections include a row of glass block at the top of the wall. The
provision of the glass block results in those particular sections being considered "not
opaque". In addition, because of their height,these also provide visibility from the sidewalk
and roadway into the development. There are 17 of these shorter sections for a total of
272 feet.
The analysis of the ratio of opaque fencing to total length is as follows:
Length of fence subject to criteria..............................970 feet
Length of"non-opaque"fence...................................304 feet
Length of opaque fence...........................................666 feet
Percentage of fence that is opaque..............................68%
Given the design of the individual sections, 68% represents an acceptable figure for
meeting the intent that not more than 2/3 of the length of the fence cannot be opaque.
Therefore, it can be determined that the proposed fence/wall meets the requirement of the
Land Use Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
After reviewing the proposed minor amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions:
1. The Greens at Collindale PUD was given final PUD approval by the Planning and
Zoning Board on October 28, 1996.
2. The applicant has filed a minor amendment to change the design of the approved
fence/wall that separates the development from Lemay Avenue.
3. The request to redesign the approved fence/wall along Lemay Avenue constitutes a
minor amendment as permitted in the Land Use Code.
4. Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code permits minor amendments to be approved after
administrative review by the Director.
J
The Greens at Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
July 1, 1999 P &Z Meeting
Page 5
5. Section 2.2.10 also allows minor amendments to be referred to the Planning and
Zoning Board for final decision.`
6. The fencetwall proposed in the minor amendment request meets the criteria of Section
3.8.11 of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested minor amendment.
11/• 1
�lliii O- � i"iii �Y'i� •••�_ • In EYY•�♦ � �•'.�i`r%' •rVll•u ? :�urrnral ac-' ur%L:� ���
q • I. emu•qi•••• ••-�~._ • •.P- � ■ �'�.s.n nq•Y� ,r iu.- �tl
..v1: ..cam �.b _ .,. . ����-����TTYYTT •�
_� rim••rz�n�; _ n�6.w p��i1
aw�� � ��- ��[�.yp��yuu�mnpV•i
�. s ,"•...no1WL 3,......n' Illltltf4\..t'�/.,}/` .�m,�u,n11=11��
�--T�
,:' _ � • .yam•N• ��•� -_- O i•�C,-
� _ ®��, �•yam, �� _ '
�� .q��P� w�. �/, � �� .��•�baiiiryo uu1.; 1
�- w:�!•�M -5l .niiii::.%:-��L ai.� o '�� jjj���r..,,.�...u.`�o•.� ice.R.n.^
- � ��� � !!ii i•.`.1` Lauri i�S A�~Pi IN Y,G��p.rin...e •�_
yip• :• a .�� .-..- ���
I I
'IiIQ RLPQ N ROAD
I I I
� I O
a �Go``kG�
Cad
�0m SITE
P II I
� y I
I I
I
o
I
I
1i
RMP (�00 O
VICINITY MAP 04/08/96
#8-96A The Greens @ Collindale PUD "
Final
1"=600'
=0\=
t F E S ttT rr
� ii CdsfEe iaai if[L�
F' a :. eE 7p i Sfi ii2
i i g E !i c Sf'x f- I' n iftM1FR,y54p9 m
`FS .:LrzEi
.f` I I i = I I I j � � � � t x 4=iFs -� E•[
t '.�. x a '.ri • ro is � ! � ion: �t € ��
F ,
*+,R lip
4
t I _ - tl /� •a: i a iF Li nty'S ilk
71 -I i�
I III.It
V c� / '�� do/[iS�L� • si pEi �t�s
� � '_ _ � u =_ / o =...- � i as i SS a}•p-;
_ / F
F _ fg,
� t`,
jr,
o
.... ......
L4•�!q a ey
i •: /)�� - / / =;T, ll
.4� i t T4S•t
Ft.� y.iF� RifiFt
/r ' \ , �'Fr� rrTr 6i�c A`afFElty Fi`L f €tnPO
41
Sl k !) �� :r 1 _ r ) C .L� �=e' I'sF ' �t� • � ( �!
I L
i17 d � f—' � �';. ,� itr� � Itl�rIi't t.E{ �� l5�. L♦ a,ri lFL d �C�
tiff
`
' ,� �[ ! „'Y^ n Y .Y F i � [{ III Ii •�[�
y I x
5d gO z
ada` Iei1 4z �r
��4`
fir
� it I �"1 � Fi�� eF � �1 I • ii= i�a ( �p G !,
a7
LLi
Lit M
I�
N�
DI-
zra
Im`
6Z n
'm __� z Tz
• D IZ= =
1z iD ^------
b
j
i� rJl D
�D
m � �
i
--- --------- -------- -------- ------ - ------ -------- -----------------
LJ
r
1• - 1TFt 1
ca • �,:.ri
� � 9
SITE PLAN FOR: DIAMOND — VAIL HOMES
' t THE GREENS AT COLLIIZALE Robert E. Nikkcl
t Design - Duild
Fort Collins. Colorado
t (990>22E-2'161 �:
fiol` MR�Baa- w�
E;J-PirEt IVDAYH
PHA,rE 7NI
• THE GREENS AT COLLINDALE
REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENT
JULY 1, 1999 - EEri N G
1. History
II. Amendment Request
A. Comparison to Approved Design
B. Land Use Code Standards
Section 3.8.11(A) -
Section 3.2.1(H)
Section 3.2.1(N)
Section 3.5.1(B)
Section 3.6.2(E)
C. Comprehensive Plan Provisions
Principles and Policies: Neighborhoods
Existing Neighborhoods
Policy EXN 1.2
Policy EXN 1.3
Policy EXN 1.4
III. Change in Character
A. Minor Amendment Criteria
B. Noise Reflection
C. Visual Effect
D. Reliance
IV. Summary
•
THE GREENS AT COLLINDALE - MINOR AMENDMENT
July 1, 1999
HISTORY
Date HARBOR WALK ESTATES Date GREENS AT COLLINDALE
iDec. 96 Developer applies for Administrative
Change to allow sound abatement
I wall
1/10/96 Sound abatement wall approved
May, 96 Developer participates in mediation May, 96 Developer objects to Harbor Walk
with neighbors and modifies the wall Estates sound abatement wall
design
8/01/96 Developer registers objections in
writing (noise reflection, need for open
wrought iron sections, exclusive
nature)
8/14196 Developer clarifies objections in writing
(intent to separate, view obstruction)
8/14/96 P & Z Board denies request for sound 8/14/96 Developer speaks to P & Z Board in
abatement wall opposition to Harbor Walk Estates
sound abatement wall
9/09/96 Developer appeals P & Z Board
denial
10/28/96 The Greens at Collindale approved on
consent with specific fence design
(alternating solid masonry/open
wrought iron picket sections) on
Landscape Plan
11/05/96 City Council upholds P &Z Board
denial of sound abatement wall ,
Summer, Residents of Harbor Walk Estates Summer, Developer constructs fence that does
98 notice increase in traffic noise 98 not comply with approved Landscape
Plan (more solid masonry sections; no
wrought iron pickets; fewer open
sections)
2/12/99 Developer finishes fence by filling in all
to open sections with concrete block
2/15/99
2/16/99 Residents complain to City
THE GREENS AT COLLINDALE -MINOR AMENDMENT
July 1, 1999'
HISTORY
2/18/99 Developer applies for amendment to
PUD Landscape Plan to allow design
of fence as constructed (solid sections
only) for marketing reasons
` 2/19/99 City Building Inspection denies
amendment request citing Land Use
j The Greens at Collindale approved on
consent with specific fence design
(alternating solid masonry/open
wrought iron sections) Code Sec.
2.2.10(A) and 3.8.11(1)
3/01/99 City Planning denies amendment
request citing Building Inspection
comments
March, Developer makes second amendment
99 request with alternative fence design
4/08/99 Building Inspection denies second
amendment request
4/15/99 Developer is cited for zoning violation -
fence does not comply with approved
Landscape Plan
May, 99 Planning Director refers second
amendment request to P & Z Board
•
Post it Fax Note 76/1 Y—/ plpa,
IAndSoanee,LLC •° / a fIX A
145 Wan Swallav Road#9 C&
,Feat C*U=cs.CO $0525 r„o.. F"°••aft/- 7
(970=3-1079 M Faa/
TO: City of It m (CIS
ATIFS7ZM*. Pla ming and 2=wq Hoard
sawav , mm: Aug= 12, 1996
7.SSaE: Wall Structure On Wa¢ren Sbares Dam
FRM L-cx curoe, 1= (Pzvp=ty Omar¢ facing Warr S=ays),
1) tt is our, =Im=ta ding tbait pe„3i ssi n bas been granted by the city of Fla t
Collins for the cmwtroctim of a sound barrier wall along a siguficaut
portico cf t,ba3 property located an Wadi sbores Dam.
2) My o=acea=n is far thOm pastiO bme C`-MEtS Wha will Live directly across the
street fig this proposed wall.
First, it would be unfortunate for themm if this wall were to increase the level
of traffic mice as a result of a ricoabet effect. from IP21asy traffic. /\
Semcxd, moose property Hoaxers wilt also have their ncamtain views drastically
affected as a result of the nerd Va ]ping built along the loon. We wa uld mt
unnt to further diminish tine line of sight ViSIAS frm their patios by their
bavitng to look directly at a solid wall strin4t= reaching to the skyline.
2) I bave srs39psted to Mr. Mike Sollenber+ger and to Mr. Miles 13r es, the city's
mediator, that if a wall was naaaoazsaty, that it be M=hitecdaally attractive. \ f
be well landed, bave breaks in it (a sit wall directly in BtzYt of the �(
housing unit tban aCrmectinq each soIJA seat+e+), and not
more . the ground so that my bomeownexs see m more than a five
foot earl id wall structure. I also that the wall stxnctttae be executed
directly in fz>sni of eadn unit cn the west side of ffieir street as opposed to
being Placed in sight view of rMay AvemM.
It this well stsanc:Enae is absolutely necessary for sound abatment t2m I see no
r»1 for the City of Fart 0071 i*+s and Plalaning and 7minag to approve its
constructitn. 8mmer, if the wall is intemied to separate this eoaclnsive project
from view of IeMy traffic and bomeomers l±V3Mq along the IeWay =tricks, tban it
should be denim:. I would also like to bam some say in the final materials to be
used far its o=ztr%=tim and its design and affect on existing landscaping along
IsMay Avenue.
Rlnarlkydu. .
� Gem R. Little, Kemmbez�
1andsouce, IIr
phone (970)223-1079 fax (970)204.0313
L/I 30Vd LI [94LL0L6'01 rd3O ONINNV9d 33NVACV-WONA bI ' BI as-LL-OOV
Lai _arce, LLC
145 West Seallow Road 09
'Fort Collins,CO 80525
(970)223-1079
August 14, 1996
Mr. Michael Sollenberger
Harbor Walk Estates
1112 Cobblestone Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Mike:
Please find enclosed a corrected copy of the LandSource letter which was to be
submitted to Planning and Zoning at their August 12, 1996 meeting. The copy of this
letter you received was a,draft which I submitted to the Golden Meadows Hone Owners
Association and was incouplete.
You will notice in the last paragraph of. this letter that LmulSource sees no reason
for P & Z or the City of Fort Collins to disapprove the construction of a wall at
your project if it is in fact.needed for sound abatement. And, if it is approved,
we would want you to minimize the affect of eliminating our patio homeowners view of
the maintain range to the west of your project. However, if the walls purpose is
merely to separate your homes from view of IsMay Ave. , which would restrict my
homeowners from experiencing their natural mountain views to the west, than I have
no choice but to speak against this wall.
This is not an issue of me siding with the Golden Meadows Home Owners Association or
coming against you personally Mike, it is an issue of protecting my homeowners from
being unreasonably disadvantaged as a result of an unnecessary adjacent property.
improvement. '
I'm willing to work with you on this issue Mike and do not want to injure or.
restrict you from developing your Harbor Walk Estates project. I'm pleased with all
the work you have put into the design of Harbor Walk Estates and appreciate the risk
you have had to take to make it a reality.
.Please try to see how this issue looks from "my side of the fence."
Respectfully,
e
Gene R. Little,
Iandsource, TIC
2
W
s ^ f
—
�"
s .•i U r� � i � i �_ I i a r c 5 e � _ L C
ho
I
� = Y s — 1
� ❑ ' ❑ J ❑ u
❑ em
u -
Y
J
J �.I.O L^ g -
,l j
.N.. p � °i' is � • � v = , ^ ' ^ ' ^ "e - '- ' _
/"1 '• �1 = O L p+ L e+ G p+ O H
�1••••11 U F fC V Cl ^ � V z �i. \ � = �u p .- O p O O C O � o _ o L " '� O L _
V = O /� FV .` ` .�. .� 7 u �^ u p Y N u t0 '� a0 •� V N V m /�
� zj� 1��1 rl N 'r � O u ;
T O Y J V V
r j = CJ :J GI ^ � h � v \ ^ u X » c » _ » 4 » � » y » C., » •� » L,u' ` _ ..
L'. U O C C S o� �•. : J L'1 CJ ° C y :ij : Cl L'j .` tg :J
in =. E. Z. 0 r
W _
- L
-12
I
�I I �+ � - t� iL, •�v •� �. - v it
� u
LiU (�
� !• � ` .• 'K ate.- J �bl
Is 11-
CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-APPLICATION FOR
MINOR AMENDMENT
The purpose for this application for a minor amendment to the Landscape Plan
for the Greens at Collindale was necessitated as a result of a recent marketing
evaluation completed by The Group Inc.
The original proposed wall along the Lemay corridor used a combination of
solid - stuccoed wall and wrought-iron fence.
The Group explained that the wrought-iron fence sections in the wall have
created a negative impact on the sale of any unit along Lemay Ave. These
wrought-iron fences create a lack of privacy to the proposed lot owners as their
back yards and patios are so close to Lemay that traffic, both visually as well
as from a sound standpoint, create an unacceptable living situation.
The issue of potential danger of a vehicle crashing through a wrought-iron
fence directly behind their living units into their patios has also raised serious
concern as has been evidenced by no less than three separate traffic accidents
along this narrow corridor of Lemay Ave in the last several months including
our own wall on January 24, 1999.
LandSource is therefore requesting that the development be allowed to replace
these wrought-iron fences with a solid decorative stucco stone-capped wall
creating a homogeneous exterior along the frontage of our development. We
have decided to allow a wrought-iron fence section along the northern portion
of our development of approximately 32 feet which is contiguous with_gur open
space park area. This will create an effect of not totally enclosing our
development to the public but will not create a safety hazard to our
homeowners as it fronts our park area. This section of the wall will be finished
with wrought-iron wall sections and a wrought-iron swinging gate to allow
access into and out of the park area.
We will be eliminating those plantings originally planned for the wrought-iron
wall sections as screening and will be placing decorative rock or sod in front of
the solid wall sections along Lemay Ave.
1DIAMOND-VAIL
0
u
R !J
1I I 5 7.
I m
iG
u
u
COW
JE
Ra
71
leg
p. a � � •a C 3 � � = H � a
rl u nJ
i.�^ � w M c •: v � h /� i L a C v �v �u � C � � nib v in
!.s. y
r t * S to a R
,� u C •O'i:'` 'C O Ye o 0 � Y v Y < u m o s4 - m G .-
7 .� •� .� I�. \ GJ \ �• Y i M = M r M M M L M = r r.l
�. +: U OCp W i >' " - L QC `u .:] YL7 u '.'_ �=, C iC7 e � y► Ov
/^ u •� O N U u - =� > w^7 : = P :O ` l•7 tl tl �� O w
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z R
. .. ...... . ......
u
,j r
l:. j y q� ✓ �� �Q m P v �
IL
.� JuJ � � � � �� v� c• �3 =V �
�- aq ti
R
i t IZ
L• I `t
lI 4 2
C = � -d -
C 3
a . r 1 .
1p
Y
= i �]+
J ~ = o
C a E
m 'f = > z= 3 a uu.
O � � .V. _ =9. t � •� ✓ Y O G _O � � xJ C? tom" �- � ...
s
• Communitv Planning and Environmental Services
Building and Zoning Department ;,,p,;,
i of Fort Collins
April 15, 1999
_ Gene R. Little
1331 Stonehenge Drive
Fort Collins, CO
80525
Dear Gene:
In the last two months you have submitted a couple of minor amendment requests to the City
of Fort Collins for the purpose of obtaining approval of a revised Lemay Avenue fence
design for The Greens at Collindale PUD. These requests, which have since been denied,
were submitted as a result of the fact that the fence that has been installed along Lemay
Avenue does not comply with the requirements of the approved PUD. Specifically, the
approved and recorded landscape plan for The Greens at Coilindale PUD requires that the
fence along Lemay Avenue be a combination of solid masonry sections with numerous open
metal picket sections. The fence that you have actually constructed does not comply with
the required design because the open sections of fencing have been omitted, and solid
fence sections have been constructed in their place. This failure to comply with the
conditions contained on the approved landscape plan constitutes a violation of Section
2.14.6(A) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
In order to correct this violation, it will be necessary to 1) reconstruct the fence so that it
complies with the original required design, or 2) obtain approval of a minor amendment that
authorizes a revised design. The required fence, or approved revised fence, must be
installed correctly by May 20, 1999. 1 know that you have been trying in earnest to obtain
approval of a revised fence design ever since you were first contacted about the problem.
Your cooperation to date has been appreciated, but the City does need to ensure that a
timely resolution of this matter is achieved. Therefore, please be advised that failure to
install a fence that complies with an approved plan by May 20, 1999 will result in the
issuance of a court summons. Such a summons could result in a fine of up to $1000.00 for
each day that the violation continues past the deadline.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
2K1 \',+rth Colle;-e Psenue • CO. Bo- ;80 • Fort Collins, CC)5p.__-05Rn • (a70) 2'_1-6760 • FAX(970)2-14-6134
Tuesday,June 29, 1999
_ t
Harbor Walk Estates Phase ll North
Homeowner's Association V F R I P L E Y
C/O Nancy Mc Gmms ASSOCIATES INC.
3831 Harbor Walk Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Landscape Architecture
Urban Desien
Planning
Dear Nancy: I I!t Stoner Hill Dnce
F.n Collm>.Colorado M25
Your Homeowner's Association has requested that I review the PUD Landscape PHONE 9'°,..+5S_S
Plan for The Greens at Collindale and give my opinion regarding the intent of the r-.,x'°'0'
drawing specifically in regard to the proposed fence.
In reviewing the plan,I find the following information to be very explicit:
❑ A fence is proposed along the entire length of the property adjacent to Lemay
Avenue with openings at two driveway locations.
❑ The fence was intended to be a combination of solid masonry panels and open
metal picket sections. An enlarged detail drawn to scale indicates that both the
solid wall sections and the metal picket sections are to be 18 feet wide.
❑ The plan view drawing indicates exactly where solid wall sections denoted with
"SW"are located and where metal picket sections denoted with"OP"are
located.
It appears that the intent was to provide solid wall fencing where exterior patios are
located and to utilize the open picket fencing sections in combination with
evergreen plant material for the remainder of the fence along Lemay Avenue.The
fence plan as illustrated on the PUD Landscape Plan clearly reflected a fence that
was predominately metal pickets with solid masonry fencing used only at driveway
entrances and where patios occurred. The drawing leaves no doubt about which
fence sections were to be open picket and which sections were to be solid.
Sincerely,
VF Ripley Associates
Linda Ripley
Principal
1
C
CO
0 rn
a T
= M
CD CD
rn
CD
N
T
W o
sv per
CD � Z
O
-o
-v
O
z
n
a
0.0 - m
rn
0
m
0
�Orrs�al�r�o�
COMMON NOISE LEVELS
from the Housing and Urban Development's"The Noise Guidebook`
EXAMPLES Decibels Subjective-Evaluations
Jet Engine 140
Pain 130
Deafening
Rock Band 120
Motorcycle 110
Auto Horn at 10 feet 100
Very Loud
Urban Street 90 Hearing Loss from
Noisy Factory Continuous Exposure
80
School Cafeteria
70 Loud
Near freeway Lemay across from
60 Harbor Walk (68dBA)
Average Office.. 5o Moderate
Soft music 40
Average residence
30 Faint
Whisper 20
Human breathing 10 Very Faint
Threshold of audibility 0
Cl) N
O 0
� - c
rm
CD m
C. 'n
CD
m
CD ..
I n O
m
cn
CD m
CL / a
CD CD
CD CD
CD CD
Division:_2, Common Development Review Procedures Section 2.13
2.2 8 Step 8: Standards
To approve a development application, the decision maker must first determine
and find that the development application has satisfied and followed the
applicable requirements of this Article 2 d complies with all of the standards
required for the applicable development a anpplication (see Step 8: "Standards"
referenced in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11), as modified by any modification of
standards approved under Section 2.8.
(Ord. No. 177, 1998 §4, 10/20/98)
` 2.2.9 Step 9: Conditions of Approval
The decision maker may impose such conditions on approval of the development
application as are necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Land
Use Code, or such conditions that have a reasonable nexus to potential impacts
of the proposed development, and that are roughly proportional, both in nature
and extent,to the impacts of the proposed development.
2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments
(A) Minor Amendments. Minor amendments to any approved development
plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development
Plan, or any site specific development plan (except replats) may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the
Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such
minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the
development plan,as so amended,continues to comply with the standards
of this Land Use Code,at least to the extent of its original compliance(so
as to preclude any greater deviation from the standards of this Land Use
Code by reason of such amendments). Minor amendments shall only
consist of any or all of the following:
(1) any change to any approved development plan or any site specific
development plan (except a minor subdivision [no longer
authorized in this Land Use Code]) which was originally subject
only to administrative review and was approved by the Director,
provided such change would not have disqualified the original
plan from administrative review had it been requested at that
time; and provided that:
(a) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease by
one (1) percent or less in the approved number of
dwelling units; or
Article 2.Page 27
Supp.4
Division 2.2. Common Development Review Procedures Section 2.2.1lhA)
40 (b) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease in
the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use
or structure that does not change the character of the
project; or
(c) the minor amendment results in a change in the housing
mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements
of the zone district and does not change the character of
the project: or
(d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the
character of the development.
(2) any change to any approved development plan or any site specific
development plan which was originally subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a
project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior
law) and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board
provided that:
(a) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease by
one (1) percent or less in the approved number of
dwelling units;or
(b) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease in
the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use
or structure that does not change the character of the
project; or .
(c) the minor amendment results in a change in the housing
mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements
of the zone district and does not change the character of
the project;or
(d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the
character of the development.
(3) In either(1) or(2) above,the Director may refer the amendment
to the Planning and Zoning Board and,if so referred,the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, -
subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3,2.4 or 2.5, as applicable for the minor amendment.
Article 2, Page 28
Supp. 4
Division 3.8.Supplententan•Regulations Section 3.3.9(C)
(C) Solar energy devices, including but not limited to, overhangs, movable
insulating walls and roofs, detached solar collectors, sun reflectors and
piping, may extend into a required yard not more than three(3) feet.
3.8.10 Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements
(A) For each single-family dwelling there shall be one(1) parking space on
lots with greater than forty(40) feet of street frontage or two (2)parking
spaces on lots with less than forty(40) feet of street frontage.
(B) Parking of any vehicle in the front yard of a lot on which exists a single-
family or two-family dwelling shall be prohibited unless such vehicle is
parked on an improved area having a surface of asphalt, concrete, rock,
gravel or other similar inorganic material, and such improved area has a
permanent border.
3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Fencing and Walls. Fencing and walls used for screening or landscaping
purposes shall meet the following standards:
(1) If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be
made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel"
effect by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone
columns, incorporating articulation into the design, varying the
alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of
fence lines with plantings,or similar techniques. In no instance,
however,shall a fence or wall be opaque for more than fifty(50)
feet for every seventy-five (75) feet of length, or proportion
thereof.
(2) Materials: Chain link fencing with or without slats shall not be
used ag a fencing material for screening purposes. Except as
permitted below,no barbed wire or other sharp-pointed fence and
no electrically charged fence shall be installed or used in any zone
districts. In the Employment District and the Industrial District,
the Director may grant a revocable use permit that must be
renewed every three(3)years for installation of security arms and
barbed wire strands atop protective fences or walls,provided that
the following conditions are met:
Article 3.Page 149
Supp.2
Division 3.8.Supplementan•Regulations Section 3.8.11
(a) The lowest strand of barbed wire is maintained at least ten
(10) feet above the adjoining ground level outside the
fence.
(b) Exterior area security lighting controlled by an automatic
light level switch is installed and maintained in good
operating condition.
(c) Such lighting is directed into the site and not outward
toward the perimeter.
(3) Fences or walls shall be:
(a) no more than four(4) feet high between the front building
line and front property line;
(b) no more than four(4)feet high if located in the front yard,
or within any required side yard setback area in the front
yard, except if required for demonstrated unique security
purposes;
• (c) no more than six (6) feet high if located within any
required rear yard setback area or within any side yard
setback area in a rear yard;
(d) no more than forty-two(42)inches in height when located
within the visual clearance triangle described in Section
3.2.1(L), and, if over thirty-two (32) inches in height
within such triangle, fences shall be constructed of split
rail with a minimum dimension of twelve (12) inches
between horizontal members.
(Ord.No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98) '
3.8.12 Adult-Oriented Uses
(A) Adult-oriented uses shall be permitted only in the zone districts
established in Article 4 wherein such uses are specifically allowed.
Article 3.Page ISO
Supp. 2
Division I._. Title. Purpose and.ludiorin. Section 1.2.4
Except as hereinafter provided,no building,structure or land shall be used and
no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved or structurally altered except in
conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is
located, nor shall a yard, lot or open space be reduced in dimensions or area to
an amount less than the minimum requirements set forth herein or to an amount
greater than the maximum requirements set forth herein.
This Land Use Code establishes procedural and substantive rules for obtaining
the necessary approval to develop land and construct buildings and structures.
Development applications for overall development plans, project development
plans, and final plans will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable
General Development Standards and District Standards. Building permit
applications will also be reviewed for compliance with the applicable General
Development Standards and District Standards, and will be further reviewed for
compliance with the approved final plan in which they are located.
1.2.5 Minimum Standards
The provisions of this Land Use Code are the minimum standards necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code.
.drtlele 1.Page 7
Supp. 3
APPROVED FENCE
• FENCE SECTION SOLID OPEN
South 50% 50%
Middle 40% 60%
North 28% 72%
COMBINED 34% 66%
PROPOSED FENCE
a 'Glass Block is Considered Solid Fence)
FENCE SECTION SOLID/GLASS BLOCK OPEN
South 100% —
Middle 100% —
. North 90% 10%
COMBINED 97% 3%
PROPOSED FENCE
Lfl 'Glass Block is Considered Open Fence)
FENCE SECTION SOLID GLASS BLOCKIOPEN
South 80% 20%
Middle 100% —
North 50% 50%
COMBINED 68% 32%
. NOTE: Land Use Code Section 3.8.11(A) - minimum requirement is 50 feet of solid wall for
every 75 feet, or a maximum of 66% solid wall. If a shorter wall with glass block on top is
considered the same as an opaque wall, still only one section of the proposed fence complies with
the minimum percentage.
Division 3.Z Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3---l(G)
(7) The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground
fixture requiring excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be
accomplished by boring under the root system of protected
existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24) inches.
The auger distance is established from the face of the tree(outer
bark) and is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as
described in the chart below.
Tree Diameter at Breast Heft(mehm) Auger Msmwc Fmm Face of Tree (fat)
0-2 1
3—t 2
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
Over 19 15
(Ii) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan
Elements. In approving the required landscape plan,the decision maker
shall have the authority to determine the optimum placement and
interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees,
vegetation,turf,irrigation, screening,buffering and fencing,based on the
following criteria:
(1) protecting existing trees,natural areas and features;
(2) enhancing visual continuity within and between neighborhoods;
(3) providing tree canopy cover,
(4) creating visual interest year round; .
(5) complementing the architecture of a development;
(6) providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually
intrusive site elements;
(7) establishing an urban context within mixed-use developments;
,Article 3.Page 16
Sapp.
Division 3.2.Site Planning and Design Standards Secaan 3...1(K)
• (4) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-wide
utility easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit
may be required to protect underground electric lines.
(L) Visual Clearance or Sight Distance Triangle. Except as provided in
Subparagraphs (1) and(2)below, a visual clearance triangle, free of any
structures or landscape elements over twenty-four(24) inches in height,
shall be maintained at street intersections and driveways in conformance
with the standards contained in the City of Fort Collins Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets,
Sidewalks,Alleys and Other Public Ways.
(1) Fences shall not exceed forty-two(42)inches in height and shall
be of an open design.
(2) Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance
triangle provided that the lowest branch of any such tree shall be
at least six (6) feet from grade.
(lvi) Revegetation. When the development causes any disturbance within any
natural area buffer zone, revegetation shall occur as required in
. subsections 3.4.1(D)(2) (Natural Area Buffer Zone) and 3.2.1(F) (Tree
Protection and Replacement).
(l) Alternative Compliance Upon request by an applicant, the decision
maker may approve an alternative landscape and tree protection plan that
may be substituted in whole or in part for a landscape plan meeting the
standards of this Section.
(1) Procedure. Alternative landscape plans shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with submittal_ requirements for
landscape plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss
the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in
which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section
than would a plan which complies with the standards of this
Section
(2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision
maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan
accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better
than would a plan which complies with the standards of this
Section.
Article 3.Page 10
Supp.1
Divisiart 3.2.Site Planning and Design Siandards Secdon 8.2.1lNI
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for-purposes of
determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section
as required above, the decision maker shall take into account .
whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing
vegetation in excess of minimum standards,protects natural areas
and features, maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances
neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicu lar
access, or demogstrates innovative design and use of plant
materials and other landscape elements.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §92, 12/15/98)
3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the parking and
circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to
safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and
transit,both within the development and to and from surrounding areas.
Sidewalk or bikeway extensions off-site may be required based on needs
created by the proposed development. This Section sets forth minimum
parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking
stalls,landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of
drive-in facilities and loading zones.
(B) General Standard The parking and circulation system within each
development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians and transit,throughout the proposed development and to and
from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to
the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system
must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible
interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on-
site bicycle system must connect to the city's on-street bikeway network.
Connections to the off-road trail system shall be made, to the extent
reasonably feasible.
(C) Development Standards. All developments shall meet the following
standards:
(1) Safety Considerations. To the maximum extent feasible,
pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles.
Article 3. Page 21
Supp.4
Division I.J. Building Standards Section:.?.l
DMsiorr 3.5 Bun DrNG ST.a.%,rDARDS
Sections:
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
3.5-2 Residential Building Standards
3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Building
3.5.4 Large Retail Establishments
3.5.5 Convenience Shopping Center
These building standards should be read in conjunction with the zone district standards contained
in Article 4 of this Land Use Code.
35.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible
when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should
be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards
contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained
in Article 4.
(B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing
developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural
character of such areas by using a design that is complementary.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition
of roof lines,the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door "
patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and
textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed .
infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials.
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be
similar in size and height, or,if larger,be articulated and subdivided into
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on
the same block, or if no buildings exist thereon,then on adjoining blocks.
(See Figure 1.)
Article.3.Page 75
Sapp. 2
Division 3.6, Transportation and Circulation Senion 3.6.-'fB)
of at least eighty (80) feet. Surface drainage on a cul-de-sac shall be _
toward the intersecting street, if possible, and if not possible a drainage
easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac. If fine sprinkler systems
or other fire prevention devices are to be installed within a residential
subdivision, these requirements may be modified by the City Engineer
according to established administrative guidelines and upon the
recommendation of the Poudre Fie Authority.
(C) Except as provided in(B)above for cul-de-sacs,no dead-end streets shall
be permitted except in cases where such streets are designed to connect
with future streets odadjacent land in which case a temporary turnaround
easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least eighty (80)
feet must be provided Such turnaround easement shall not be required
if no lots in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access.
(D) If residential lots in a subdivision are adjacent to an arterial street, no
access to individual lots from such arterial street shall be permitted.
(E) Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall have
a minimum depth of one hundred fifty(150) feet.
(1) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by the applicant, the
decision maker may approve an alternative lot plan that does not
meet the standard of this subsection(E)if the alternative lot plan
includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the
judgment of the decision maker,protect such lots from the noise,
light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as
well as,or better than,a plan which complies with the standard of
this Subsection(E).
(2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted
in accordance with the submittal requirements for streets,
streetscapes,alleys and easements as set forth in this Section and
landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot
plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and
alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will equally
well or better accomplish the purpose of this Subsection (E)than
would _a plan which complies with the standards of this
Subsection(E).
Article 3.Page 104
Supp.4
Division 3.6. Transportation and Circulation Section 3.6.2rE1
• (3) Review Criteria To approve an alternative lot plan, the decision
maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan
accomplishes the purpose of this Subsection (E) as well as, or
better than, a lot plan which complies with the standard of this
Subsection. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the
decision maker shall take into account whether the lot plan
provides screening and protection of the lots adjacent to the
arterial street from noise,light and other negative impacts of the
arterial street equally well or better than a plan which complies
with the standard of this Subsection (E).
(17 Reverse curves on arterial streets shall be joined by a tangent at least two
hundred(200) feet in length.
(G) The applicant shall not be permitted to reserve a strip of land between a
dedicated street and adjacent property for the purpose of controlling
access to such street from such property unless such reservation is
approved by the City Engineer and the control of such strip is given to the
city.
(H) Street right-of-way widths shall conform to the"Design and Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Streetscapes,
Sidewalks,Alleys and Other Public Ways" as approved and amended by
the City Council from time to time by ordinance or resolution.
(I) Streetscape design and construction, including medians and parkways,
shall conform to the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and other
Public Ways"as approved and amended by the City Council from time
to time by ordinance or resolution. Any permits that are required
pursuant to the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and other
Public Ways"shall be obtained by the applicant before the construction
of the street, streetscape, sidewalk, alley or other public way (as
applicable) is commenced.
(n Alleys and other easements shall be controlled by the following
requirements:
(1) . Alleys in residential subdivisions shall be permitted only when:
(a) they are necessary and desirable to continue an existing
pattern, or (b) they are needed to allow access to residential
•
Article 3. Page 105
Supp.4
Division 1.2. Title. Purpose and Autiior!ry Section i.-.i
DIVISION 1.2 TITLE,PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Sections:
1.2.1 Title
1.2.2 Purpose
1 2.3 Authority
1.2.4 Applicability
1.2.5 Minimum Standards
1.2.1 Title `
The provisions contained herein shall be known, cited and referred to as the "City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code," or the "Land Use Code."
1.2.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with
this Land Use Code,City Plan and its adopted components, including but
not limited to the Structure Plan,Principles and Policies and associated
sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's
transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and.
services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and
mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency
services,police, electricity, open space,recreation,and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for
adequate drainage and.reduction of flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile
travel and encourage trip consolidation.
Article 1. Page S
Supp.3
Division 1._. Title. Purpose and.lndrorin' Section 1._.-tGi
. (G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails,bicycle routes
and other alternative modes of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential,
business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. `
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established
areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of
existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and
features.
1.23 Authority
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins has the authority to adopt this Land
Use Code pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution;Title 31, Article
2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, and such other authorities and provisions as are established in the
statutory and common law of the State of Colorado.
1.2A Applicability
The provisions of this Land Use Code shall apply to any and all development of
land within the municipal boundaries of the city,unless expressly and specifically
exempted or provided otherwise in this Land Use Code. No development shall
be undertaken without prior and proper approval or authorization pursuant to the
terms ofthis Land Use Code. All development shall comply with the applicable
terms, conditions, requirements, standards and procedures established in this
Land Use Code.
Article 1.Page 6
Sapp. 3
P
•'• AU New Neighborhoods (AN-)
4# New Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (UN)
•3 New Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (M.11Vi)
❖ Existing Neighborhoods (EX'L7
A neighborhood is more than just a housing development by itself. It's about 100 to
160 acres in size — large enough to support services and amenities which meet some of
Mthe needs of daily life, but small enough to be defined by pedestrian comfort and
interest_ This general size range is based on a five-minute walking distance (about a
quarter-mile) from the edge to the center and a ten-minute walk (about a half-mile)
edge to edge.
Each neighborhood may have an identity that evolves from its public spaces— streets,
parks and outdoor spaces, schools, places of worship, and other shared facilities.
Human scale and visual interest are the standards for proportions in buildings and
places.
Forms of housing are mixed, so that people of different ages and incomes have
opportunities to live in various areas in the city. Automobiles do not take pregedence
over human needs, including aesthetic needs. A neighborhood has a public transit
stop, and many ways of getting to, through, and between it and other neighborhoods
by driving, walking and bicycling.
These City Plan Principles and Policies for neighborhoods pri"aril?3�Pply to new
development. They may have relevance to an existing neighborhood if�ere is an
opportunity to infill, update and/or improve a particular situation.
Most new residential development will occur in two kinds of neighborhoods: "Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods" and "Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods."
The intent is for residential dedelopments to fora neighborhoods that evolve to be part
of the broader community, avoiding separate subdivisions or freestanding individual
complexes attached to the community mainly by an entrance for auto traffic.
City Plc%Principles and Policies Neighborhoods
February is, 1997 145
This includes the many. various residential developments existing within the City at the
time of adoption of these Citv Plan PrinciDles and Policies.
PRL CIPLE FKi T-1: Most existing residential developments will remain
largely unaffected by these City Plan Principles and Policies.
Policy Eli-1.1 Changes To Existing Residential Developments. No significant
changes to the character of existing residential developments will be initiated by City
Plan. Changes. if any, will be carefully planned and will result from initiative by
residents or from a specific subarea plan prepared in collaboration with residents.
Other changes may result from specific initiatives intended to improve the quality of
existing neighborhoods. such as improving mobility and access to everyday activities
and services. and the introduction of new neighborhood centers, parks. and small civic
facilities.
Policy.EXN-1 2 Collaboration with Surrounding Residents. The City will continue
to ensure that neighbors will be advised of any changes and be requested to comment.
Stated preferences of neighbors will be considered in determining acceptable intensity
and character of infill and redevelopment.
Policy EXN-1.3 Relationship to the Vicinity and the Broader Community.
In determining the acceptability of changes to parcels of land adjacent t ting
residential developments, the adjacent residents' preferences will be glance )with
community-wide interests.
Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment. Infil]lredevelopment
policies, standards, and procedures will apply to proposals for such activity in
designated areas. Residential development on any parceis.over twenty (20) acres will
be subject to the density policies for new neighborhoods. Other policies for new
neighborhoods should be taken into consideration, if applicable. For parcels under
twenty (20) acres, such infill and redevelopment activity will be supported if designed
to complement and extend the positive qualities of surrounding development and
adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any
identifiable style, proportions, shapes relationship to the street,pattem of buildings
grid vards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses.
Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Forms of
potential infill development include:
Ciry Plan Pr==1es and Policies Ensting+6ghbOrhOodS
February 1S. 199- 161
The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped
parcels surrounded by existing residential development
• Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g.. basement or upstairs
apartments)
• Small. detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing
houses (e.g.. "alley houses" or"granny flats")
• Redevelopment of properties
• Neighborhood-related. non-residential development
Policy EXN-1.5 Introduction of Neighborhood-Related., Non-Residential
Development. New services, conveniences. and/or gathering places will be supported
in an existing neighborhood that lacks such facilities. provided rhey meet performance
and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood's positive characteristics. level
of activity, and parking and traffic conditions.
Related Plans v Policy Background:
Previously adopted documents include:
Issues and Policy Plans:
• Air Quality Policy Plan: summarizes pertinent facts.about-air quality;
establishes a communityvision and measurable objectives, and sets-forth
specific policies to direct City programs and actions (1993).
• Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plmr: guides development of a City bikeway
program and facilities (1995).
• Fort Collins Congestion ManagementPlan: :land use;transporratiomand
air quality recommendations. Identification of activity,centers (1995).
• Parks and Recreation Policy Plan: an inventory and assessment of needs,
specific recommendations, and.implementation options for parks,
recreation and open space (1996).
• Pedestrian Plan: policies, design standards.and guidelines for pedestrian
facilities (1996).
Subarea Plans:
• EastsideNeigbborboodPlan: policies and recommendations to preserve
and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1986).
• Westside Neigbborbood Plan: policies and recommendations to preserve -
and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1989).
City Pant Prasciples and Policies Eidsting Neighborhoods
Febru=r 18, 199' 162
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Bob Blanchard��
Current Pla ning Di ector
THROUGH: Greg Byrne
CPES Directo
DATE: August 25, 19
SUBJECT: Greens At Collindale PUD Minor Amendment—Appeal to City
Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal filed on July 15,
1999 by William E. Watson, Jr. of LandSource, LLC regarding the
. July 1, 1999 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny a minor
amendment to the Greens At Collindale PUD. The memorandum does not
provide a recommendation or attempt to justify either the Board's decision or the
appeal. Rather, it sets the parameters by which an appeal can be filed, identifies
the sections of the Code the appeal is based on, describes specific allegations,
cites pertinent sections of the Land Use Code and briefly summarizes the
Board's action.
Section 2-48 of the City Code states:
Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible
grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board,
commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the
following errors:
1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter.
2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board, commission or other decision maker
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the
• Code or Charter;
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020
b. The board, commission or other decision maker -
substantially ignored its previously established rules of
procedure;
C. The board, commission or other decision maker
considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board, commission or other decision maker
improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered
by the appellant.
The appeal is based on Sections 2-48 1) and 2)c:
2-48 1): Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Code and Charter; and,
2-48 2): Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
c. The board, commission or other decision maker considered
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false
or grossly misleading.
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
A. Allegation
The appellant contends that the Board misinterpreted Section 2.2.10(A) of
the Land Use Code in that the motion for denial stated that approval of the
minor amendment would result in a wall that is in further non-compliance
with the Land Use Code than the original wall. The actual test should
have been whether the proposed amendment continues to comply with
the Land Use Code.
B. Applicable Code Section
Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code states:
...minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the
development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the
standards of this Land Use Code, at least to the extent of its original
compliance (so as to preclude any greater deviation from the
standards of this Land Use Code by reason of such amendment)...
C. Staff Response
The Planning and Zoning Board motion for denial is on page 46 of the
transcript and states:
"... move denial of the request for a minor amendment based on
the grounds that it does not meet the minor amendment standards
in 2.2.10; specifically, I believe that this is ..... in less compliance
with the Land Use Code than it was originally."
With the approval of this motion, the Board made a finding that the
proposed changes to the fence/wall resulted in a structure that was in
further non-compliance with the Code that the original structure.
Failure to conduct a fair hearing
A. Allegation
The appellant contends that the Board misinterpreted that Section 3.8.11
of the Code refers to "open" areas rather than "opaque" areas.
B. Applicable Code Section
Section 3.8.11 of the Land Use Code states:
...In no instance, however, shall a fence or wall be opaque for more
than fifty (50) feet of length, or proportion thereof.
C. Staff Response
Discussion of the motion for denial stated:
"... there is a major, material difference in open fencing with
landscaping and in a solid wall...
............ .. . ..
In the discussion of the motion, the issue of opaque versus open was not
addressed.
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
Commission members present:
Glen Colton, Chair
Jerry Gavaldon
Jennifer Carpenter
Judy Meyer
Staff present :
Paul Eckman, City Attorney' s Office
Ted Shepard, Planning Department
Peter Barnes, Planning Department
Georgian Deines, Planning Department
18%eadors 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
2
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
4
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
6
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.
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
8
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
•
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
•
18
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 sxtra 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
•
26
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 .
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.
30
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.
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
is 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.
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
18 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
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 34-1 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
1B 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.
s 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
is 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
is 1 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 --
8 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 act a quote from Mr. Little. I 'm just wondering where you
14 got that quote. It sounded like a quote.
15 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
18 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
•
40
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.
•
42
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 MR. 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 .
44
1 MR. WATSON: Yeah.
2 MR. GAVALDON: So I 'm just trying to
3 understand --
4 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
8 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 .
14 CHAIRMAN COLTON: I don' t see anyone having a
15 question. 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.
18 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
•
46
1 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
48
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
49
1 fence up has created the noise problem. Maybe there ' s just
2 more traffic on Lemay. And I have -- I ' ll support it, but I
3 just want it on record that I don't think the fence is the
4 cause of the noise. I think Lemay is the cause of the
5 noise.
6 CHAIRMAN COLTON; Okay. Could we have roll
7 call, please.
8 THE CLERK: Carpenter.
9 MS. CARPENTER: Yes .
10 THE CLERK: Meyer.
11 MS. MEYER: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
14 THE CLERK: Colton.
15 CHAIRMAN COLTON: Yes.
16 Okay. That concludes that item. Thank you all
17 for coming.
18 (Matter concluded. )
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
� •• ••fir'--.
son Meadors
20 , jeadors Court Reporting, LLC
,am . 40 West Oak Street, Suite 266
219j•• • p?s: Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
�CZCOL� - (970) 482-1506
22
My commission expires January 6, 2001 .
23
24
25
WRITTEN COMMENTS
SUBMITTED
BY THE APPELLANT FOR
INCLUSION IN THE
COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
•
GREENS AT COLLINDALE
WALL AMENDMENT APPEAL
SEPTEMBER 7, 1999
•
I• CITY COUNCIL APPEAL
9/7/99
Introduction
I'm William E. Watson, Jr. representing the developer of the Greens at Collindale in Fort
Collins, CO. The developer is known as LandSource, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company. LandSource is the appellant in the case before you that requests an appeal
of the Planning &Zoning Board ("P&Z Board") decision on July 1, 1999 to deny the
appellants request by minor amendment to redesign the stucco wall that is parallel to S.
Lemay Ave. and along the entire west property line of the development. The request for
redesign of the wall is in dispute with some of the residents who live in the Harbor Walk
i Estates area west of S. Lemay Ave. and the development. They argue the solid
sections of the wall reflect the traffic noise from S. Lemay Ave. to their homes
approximately 175 feet west of the existing wall. Based upon the facts on the record of
the P&Z Board hearing on July 1, 1999, I'm requesting that the Council overturn the
decision of the P&Z Board and approve the redesign of the wall which was
"recommended for approval" by the Current Planning Staff of the City of Fort Collins.
Plannina and Zonina Board Errors
The P&Z Board misapplied Land Use Code ("LUC") 2.2.10 (A), 2.2.10(A)(2)(d);
misinterpreted LUC 3.8.11 (1), 3.8.11(3)(c) ; ignored the Purpose of the LUC 1.2.2 (A),
(B), (C), (J), and (L); and cited, as one reason for the denial of the minor amendment,
an irrelevant standard LUC 3.4.4.
3.4.4 Noise and Vibration "The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted
so that any noise generated on the property will not exceed the maximum noise
levels as specified in the city's Noise Control Ordinance, and so that any vibration
created by the use of the property will be imperceptible ....," etc. Noise has never
been generated on the development property, so this standard is not relevant to this
matter.
3.8.11(1) Fences and Walls "If used along collector or arterial streets, such features
shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect by
integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating
articulation into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the
appearance of fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In no instance,
however, shall a fence or wall be opaque for more than fifty (50) feet for every seventy-
five (75) feet of length, or proportion thereof."
In his Staff report for the July 1, P&Z Board meeting, Bob Blanchard says, "the standard
to judge the requested changes against is found in Section 3.8.11(1) of the Land Use
Code." He goes on to say how the Current Planning Department of the City of Fort
Collins applies this code when he says, "the use of the term "proportion," has been
interpreted as applying a ratio of 2 (opaque length) to 3 (overall length) over the entire
length of a fence or wall when reviewing development proposals, Rather than strictly
apply a standard of 50 feet out of every 75 feet in length, the opaque distance can be
measured as a percentage of the overall length of a fence/wall (67%). Use of the term
i
"opaque" indicates that as long as the fence/wall structure includes elements that
allow light to penetrate through the structure for at least 1/3 of its length, it can be
found to be in compliance."
Standard 3.8.11(1) should communicate clear and unmistakable meaning. However, it
fails to do so by using subjective wording such as "visually interesting" and "tunnel
effect." This standard's criterion of "visually interesting" is on a subjective par with the
saying that"beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "Tunnel effect' is cryptic at best and
without definition in the annals of the LUC. This standard is worded in such a manner
that different applicants are not able to interpret their responsibilities under this
standard in a similar manner. For these reasons, this standard is about to be junked
by the City.
Since the standard uses a word like "opaque" (light blocking) to describe 2/3 of a wall
length then, by implication, the remaining 1/3 of wall length must be "not opaque" (light
penetrating).The amount or quantity of opacity can only be measured in terms of area
(length x height). But, in an attempt to limit opacity, the standard incorrectly measures
opacity only in terms of length ("50 feet for every 75 feet in length"), Thus, the standard
abandons to everyone's imagination how to define the light-penetrating or light-blocking
attributes of a wall's height. Imagine a 75-ft.-long wall only one-inch high. This example
would not comply with this standard because the wall length requires the wall height to
have an undefined capacity for light to penetrate the one-inch height for at least 25-ft of
the wall's length. Since the standard is mute about how much of the wall's height
must allow light to penetrate, the City Planning Staff has provided guidance by
directing that, if 1/3 of the length of the wall structure includes elements that allow
light to penetrate through the structure, than compliance is achieved.
To comply with this standard, the developer has proposed a redesign of 252-ft. of wall
that includes both a not-opaque (light penetrating) single course of glass block placed
as the last course below the top cap of the wail, and an additional reduction in wall
height from the wall's previously-reduced height of 60-in. to 45-in. In consideration of
these facts, one P&Z Board member ignored the proposed reduction in wall height,
ignored the City Staf's guidelines about standard 3.8.11(A), applied his imagination and
then expressed a concise definition of the obscure by stating that one course of glass
block does not change the wall from opaque (light blocking) to not opaque (light
penetrating).
In fact, one course of glass block does indeed transform the wall structure from opaque
(light blocking) to not opaque (light penetrating). This complies with the guidelines of
the City Staff that the wall structure includes elements that allow light to penetrate
through the structure. And finally, this complies with standard 3.8.11 (1)which
speaks only to the proportion of wall length (1.0/3.0) that needs to be not opaque (light
penetrating). Compliance is not required with that of which the standard has not
spoken, and standard 3.8.11(1) is mute about how much of a wall's height must be
not opaque (light penetrating). Please refer to Exhibit 1 which demonstrates this claim
of compliance.
1.2.2 (A), (B), (C),and(J) Puroose "The purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve
and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this
Land Use Code,...
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land,...
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development."
In their denial of the proposed amendment, the P&Z Board seemed to ignore the
overarching purposes of the LUC as stated above.
1.2.2 (B) The Greens at Collindale is an innovative development for the City of Fort
Collins. It is unrivaled because of its architecture, design, and quality of materials. The
proposed wall is also innovative and a vital component of the development's character
since it emulates the development's motif.
1.2.2 (C) The economic use of the land has been determined and approved to be for
developed, residential lots. Nine lots at the Greens at Collindale PUD are designed to
be adjacent to the northbound lane of the S. Lemay Ave. traffic corridor. Placement of a
wall with the proposed design between these lots and the traffic corridor of a 4-lane,
arterial street is crucial to fostering an environment for residential use. In fact, this
fostering is mandated by standard 3.6.2 (E) (1) for lots similar to these nine lots that
have a depth of less than one hundred fifty (150) feet and whose rear lot lines abut an
arterial street such as S. Lemay Ave. The standard states the decision maker may
approve an alternative lot plan if the plan, "includes additional buffering or screening
that will, in the judgement of the decision maker, protect such lots from the noise,
light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as well as, or better
than, a plan which complies with the standard of this Subsection (E)." The decision by
the P&Z Board to deny the amended wall design that provides the protection
required by 3.6.2 (E) (1) is careless and contradicts the exact intent of standard 3.6.2
(E) (1). More LUC ignored by the P&Z Board 3.2 (H) (4), (5), (6), (8), (11) and(12)
regards the placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements. This
LUC states the decision maker has, "the authority to determine optimum placement and
interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees, vegetation, turf,
irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following criteria: (4)
creating visual interest year round; (5) complementing the architecture of a
development; (6) providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive
site elements; (8) providing privacy to residents and users; (11) promoting compatibility
and buffering between and among dissimilar land uses; (12) establishing spatial
definition." All of these criteria are much better served by the thoughtful placement of
the proposed changes in the wall design as indicated in the amendment.
The proposed wall is designed to be more opaque (light blocking) than the original wall.
• This proposed increase in opacity will foster the "safe use" of the land adjacent to the
traffic corridor by serving to impede accidental vehicular damage to the development or
its residents, and therefore, reduce public liability. The northbound lane of S. Lemay
I Ave. from one to three blocks south of the proposed wall has been the scene in past
years of multiple vehicular accidents. The accidents have caused serious damage to
several residential properties east of S. Lemay and physical injury to the drivers. The
City of Fort Collins responded to this safety issue by installing heavy-gauge-steel guard
i rails next to privacy fences at several residential locations adjacent to the northbound
lane of S. Lemay Ave. The purpose of the guardrails is to impede northbound vehicles
from causing property damage and personal injury. On January 24, 1999, a vehicle left
the northbound lane of S. Lemay Ave. and crashed through the appellants existing wall
near the north entryway at the Greens at Collindale. Like the guardrails, an opaque wall
(light blocking) would provide some structural integrity to impede errant vehicles in an
attempt to abate public liability and promote public safety. These important safety
concerns were stripped of further consideration by the P&Z Board with the comment by
i one member who stated, "I've seen cars go through them (cinder-block walls) and they
can't slow cars down at all."
1.2.2 (J)The finished wall as proposed for the Greens at Collindale will stand as a work
of masonry art and will be without peer in the City of Fort Collins as an example of
aesthetic design and quality. The wall also models the characteristics and motif of the
entire development. These attributes are imperative to improve the design, quality and
character of the new development.
2.2.10 (A) Minor Amendments The most glaring errors and misapplication of LUC by
the P&Z Board occurred with this standard. This standard was incorrectly applied on
the motion for denial of the amendment and again on the second of the motion. The
standard states, "minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the
development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Land
Use Code, at least to the extent of its original compliance (so as to preclude any
greater deviation from the standards of this Land Use Code by reason of such
amendments)." The phrase "any greater deviation" is the tip off that the original Land
Development Guidance System ("LDGS") development plan to which the amendment
applies was never in compliance with the LUC. If such an already non-compliant
LDGS plan is amended, the amendment cannot cause the non-compliant LDGS plan to
be more non-compliant with the LUC than the non-compliant LDGS plan was prior to
the amendment. This standard is applicable only to this first situation which requires a
comparison of the LDGS plan's non-compliance level both before and after the
proposed amendment. If the extent of non-compliance of the LDGS plan is greater with
the amendment, the amendment must be denied. If the extent of non-compliance of
the LDGS plan is equal or will be decreased with the amendment, the amendment will
be approved. The amendment for the redesign of the wall represents an entirely
different second situation that has nothing to do with this standard because in this case,
the original LDGS plan will always be in compliance with the LUC. Here the
amendment is simply tested against the LUC for compliance. Approval or denial of the
amendment depends on the results of such test.
Exhibit 2 clearly shows two amendment compliance test procedures. Which procedure
to use to test the amendment's compliance is solely dependent upon whether or not the
LDGS development plan subject to amendment was or was not compliant with the LUC.
Exhibit 1 demonstrates the original wall design under the LDGS had an opaque (light
blocking) wall length to wall span ratio of 1.413.0. Since the LUC standard 3.8.11 (1)
allows a maximum ratio of 2.0/3.0, the original LDGS plan has always been compliant
with the LUC. Therefore, the proposed wall amendment is tested for compliance only
against the LUC and not the original wall design. Exhibit 1 indicates the proposed
amendment for the wall should be approved because it complies with the LUC
standard 3.8.11 (1) which allows an opaque (light blocking) wall length to wall span ratio
of 2.0/3.0. The P&Z Board improperly tested the compliance of the wall's amendment
against the compliance of the wall's previous design 12.2.10 (A)]rather than the LUC
standard 13.8.11 (1)).
Neiahborhood Issue
The appellant's opponents is this matter are Corky Odell and spouse, Mike Sollenberger
and Nancy McGinnis. Both C. Odell and N. McGinnis attended the P&Z Board meeting
on July 1, 1999. The following will reference these people as the "neighbors." The
neighbors assert that their opposition to the wall is based only on the issue of traffic
noise. The neighbors claim that the traffic noise from S. Lemay Ave. reflects off the
opaque (light blocking) sections of the wall and then travels west for at least 175 feet
while gaining enough elevation to impact their homes along Harbor Walk Lane. This is
strictly a theory promoted by the neighbors with absolutely no basis in fact. The
neighbors cannot offer one whit of evidence to prove their theory. The neighbors have
offered only anecdotes to back up their claims. These anecdotes have been found to
contradict the facts as outlined in the request-for-appeal letter dated 7/15199. For
example, the position of the homes of C. Odell and N. McGinnis opposite the south
entryway and northerly opened wall sections respectively, indicate the presence of wall
openings and not the opaque (light blocking) sections required by their theory. And,
only 54% of the total length of the wall is opposite the neighbors homes. The neighbors
had a great deal of time to speak against the original design and the wall as it was
constructed in the spring of 1998. Yet, it wasn't until February of 1999 when the
appellant completed construction of the wall that the neighbors complained about the
noise issue. The neighbors say they knew about the original design of the wall and had
no objections because they said solid sections of the wall were alternated with open
sections. Since they allege that noise is their issue, its perplexing why the original
design was acceptable to them because, according to their theory, any solid wall
section could serve as a reflector of noise. There has never been any complaint or
word about a noise issue regarding the wall from the three residents who live to the
south of the neighbors on Harbor Walk Lane. C. Odell began her presentation to the
P&Z Board by declaring the neighbor's opposition to the wall was not payback, not
retribution and not a neighborhood feud. She was referring to a former associate of the
appellant who, several years ago, had opposed the neighbor's plan for a wall along
Harbor Walk Lane. The neighbor's plan for a wall was subsequently denied on appeal
with the City Council of Fort Collins. In spite of her disclaimers, the appellant believes
that "noise" may be a straw-man issue with the neighbors because she stated to the
P&Z Board, "1 ask you not to allow this wall which has already increased the noise to
our homes especially after you disapproved our wall which would have given us some
• protection and it would not be fair to worsen the situation for us and protect them from
the same noise."
I
Compliance with Standard 3.8.11.
Wall Description Exhibit 3
The proposed wall complies with or exceeds all requirements of standard
3.8.11. It is constructed of cinder block generally 60" high and capped with tile-
looking concrete. Wall sectioning (articulation) is created by cinder-block
pilasters (columns) capped with tile-looking concrete. The pilasters are generally
65" high and 16 feet apart. The pilasters rest upon subsurface pylons that are 4-
1 6 feet deep. The wall and pilasters are finished with a smoothly-textured stucco
of contrasting colors. The wall stucco is a white color, and the pilasters and
concrete caps are rose-colored. The materials and colors of the wall, its pilasters
and its caps are inherent to the homogeneousness of the development that
mandates the exact same materials and colors for the exterior walls of every
building and courtyard constructed within the development.
Application of Standard 3.8.11 to Northbound Motorist on S. Lemay Ave.
The attractiveness of the wall primarily influences the northbound motorist on S.
Lemay Ave. The southbound motorist's view of the wall is practically shielded by
the dense vegetation of mature evergreen trees, deciduous trees and shrubbery
in the S. Lemay Ave. median that is elevated above the road's surface for most
of the wall's length. Decreasing the wall's opacity along its entire length by
reducing its permitted height allows most of the public sidewalk traffic to see over
the wall which shifts their focus from the wall's beauty to wider horizons.
Compliance Evidence
The wall is made "visually interesting", avoids the "tunnel effect", and limits
opacity by: (1) integrating the stuccoed and colored pilasters with colored
concrete caps installed on top of the wall, (2) articulating the wall design with a
pilaster every 16 feet thus creating 67 wall sections along the entire length of the
wall, (3) varying the wall alignment as the wall curves in a somewhat parallel
relationship to the curves of the northbound lane of S. Lemay Ave. as well as the
curvature and extension of the wall toward the development in four places to
form the two entryways into the development, (4) softening the visual
appearance of the wall primarily with the stucco finish along with developer-
installed landscaping consisting of irrigated turf or rose-colored rock east of the
public sidewalk plus 26 deciduous trees planted near the east surface of the wall
which integrates with the existing public landscaping consisting of 16 deciduous
trees and irrigated turf west of the public sidewalk along with extensive
shrubbery, 10 deciduous trees and 14 mature evergreen trees in the median of
I S. Lemay Ave., (5) varying the wall surface by installing project logo and address
numbering and lettering at four wall locations along with backlighting a portion of
the wall near the south entryway, (6) attracting the attention of the northbound
motorist on S. Lemay Ave. to the south-facing, entryway wall which has attached
a 16 square-foot, dark-green colored, back-lit sign displaying "The Greens at
Collindale", (7) providing a 12-inch "window of transparency" along the top of the
wall so the wall is not opaque (light blocking) along its entire length by reducing
the wall's permitted height from 72 inches [ 3.8.11 (3) (c)) to 60 inches which
allows the majority of sidewalk pedestrians, bikers and roller bladers to see over
the wall, (8) stair stepping the height of the wall in 8 different locations and
i curving the top of the wall on both sides of both entryways adds diversity to the
1
wail's contour as does keeping the wall on the same grade as the public sidewalk
which has the effect of altering the wall's elevation as the sidewalk grade
changes elevation, (9) opening the wall for both vehicular and pedestrian access
to the development at two vehicle entryways and one pedestrian entryway for a
total opening of 135 feet out of a total wall span of approximately 1159 feet, (10)
being less than 0.2 mile in length which minimizes the visual influence of the wall
because a non-speeding, northbound motorist, who evenly splits his/her attention
between the wall and the road, has less than 11.2 disconnected seconds to form
a mental snapshot of all of the wall's characteristics, (11) limiting, in a vehicular
accident, the damage inflicted by a northbound motorist to the development
property and/or residents of the development, (12) decreasing wall opacity by
installing 252 feet of glass block in two locations as the final course before the
wall cap is installed while lowering the wall height from 60 inches to 45 inches in
this same length of 252 feet.
Exhibit 1
WALL DESIGN COMPARISON
Greens at Collindale
Original Wall Design Proposed Wall Design
(LDGS) (Amendment)
Wall span (length of property) 1159 feet 1159 feet
Opaque (light blocking) wall length 528 feet 772 feet
Ratio: Opaque (light blocking) wall length
to wall span *1.4/3.0 *2.0/3.0
% Opaque (light blocking) wall length
to wall span 45.6 66.6
Not Opaque (light penetrating) wrought-
iron-picket wall length 528 feet 32 feet
Not Opaque (light penetrating) 45-in.-
high, glass block wall length 0 feet 252 feet
Not Opaque (light penetrating)
Entryways 103 feet 103 feet
Ratio: Not Opaque (light penetrating)
wall length to wall span *1.6/3.0 *1.0/3.0
% Not Opaque (light penetrating) wall
length to wall span 54.4 33.4
* All ratios comply with LUC
Conclusion: The net change between the Original and Proposed Wall designs is 496
feet (528-32) of"Not Opaque" (light penetrating) wrought-iron-picket wall from the
Original Wall Design replaced with the Proposed Wall Design of 252 feet of"Not
. Opaque" (light penetrating) 45-in.-high, glass block wall, and 244 feet of"Opaque" (light
blocking) wall.
Exhibit 2
Amendment to LDGS Compliance Test Procedure
LUC Section 2.2.10 (A)
Amendment to
LOGS Plan
compliant with
LUC
Amendment Amendment
LUC compliant with Approved
LUC
Amendment not
compliant with
LUC
Amendment to
LOGS Plan not
Amendment compliant with
Denied LUC
Amendment does not increase LOGS
LOGS Plan Plan's non-compliance with LUC
Amendment does
increase LOGS Plan's
non-compliance with LUC
+ i9L2-92Z(OL6)
opc4olo0 'aulllo0 i4od _
piing _ u6 i aa0 :2 1YON 1�-100 lY SN?�5 ?Nl M-7
12TAIN •3 }4agoy OC 9 WWOW "11 YA - 0N0WY 10 :�JO-J NY7d 31 I S
a e =
Al
J
ji
eft ,L
U � 141• I �
_y =f - • t:
rz
tu
n
v / N
yr»
i
Exhibit 4
LANDSOURCE, LLC
July 15, 1999
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear City Clerk:
Action Appealed: Denial by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board ("P & Z
Board") on July 1, 1999 of a referred minor amendment by the applicant, LandSource, LLC,
to re-design the wall adjacent to Lemay Ave. at the Greens at Collindale.
William E, Watson, Jr. at 1136 E. Stuart St. #4203, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 221-3048
represents the appellant who is LandSource, LLC. The appellant is a party-in-interest
because the appellant is the applicant for the referred minor amendment mentioned above.
The grounds for appeal are that the P &Z Board erred in that the Board: (1) did not properly
. interpret nor properly apply relevant law (Land Use Code) and (2) considered substantially
false or grossly misleading evidence from the appellants opponent, the Harbor Walk
Neighbors ("HWN").
Following is a summary of facts of the July record on appeal supporting the appellant's
allegations of P&Z Board error.
Harbor Walk Neighbors (HWN) testified to knowing about the wall and its design prior to
construction of the wall by the appellant in the spring of 1998. ( N. McGnnis- "we knew the
wall was going to be there"; C. Odell- there were assurances what the wall looked
like; when purchasing what surrounded mostly open fencing when we saw the plan"; in
reply to Peter Barnes, "proposed fence excellent is why no comments at the
neighborhood meeting."
The appellant asked why HWN did not object to the initial wall design that contained the
solid sections that according to their testimony becomes a source of noise to their 6 homes.
C. Odell replied, " None of us lived there at that point. That was before any of us moved in."
However, 4 lots were owned by HWN prior to the wall's approval, and three other HWN lots
were purchased within 60 days of the wall's 10/28/96 approval.
They testified to their knowledge of the wall and its design yet none of the lot owners prior to
10/28/96 had objected to the wall's solid sections.
With this testified-awareness of the original wall's design, why didn't HWN immediately
object to the wall as installed in the spring of 1998? HWN claimed this installation had more
closed sections than allowed by the original design. Yet there was no protest by HWN until
February of 1999 when 16 open sections of the wall were made solid.
• Thirty-one sections (approximately 16' per section) of the wall's 67 sections are either north
or south of the HWN property. Of the remaining 36 sections parallel to HWN existing
homes, 4 sections were closed and one section was opened in February of 1999. Yet the
testimony of N. McGinnis was when the last of the wall was blocked, you could hear the
noise through the her whole house. The fact is in February of 1999, parallel to the
McGinnis' home, one section of wall was opened and no sections were closed.
C. Odell is the spouse of M. Sollenberger, the developer of Harbor Walk Estates. I believe
disclosure of this should have been made up front with the P&Z Board. She testified in
general how the wall has caused higher noise levels at her home. However, she lives
opposite the south entryway of the development which has no wall. The design of the
original wall at the south entryway has never changed, and will never be walled
because it is an entryway.
Improper Land Use Code was cited. Code was taken out of content; code was only partially
cited or C. Odell misinterpreted code as follows:
3.8.11 (A) - Partially cited and misinterpreted; 3.2.1. (H) - Of 12 items, only 1 cited, 6 other
items support the appellant; 3.2.1. (N) — misquoted - "connectivity" instead of"continuity";
3.5.1. (B) - Not relevant, refers to buildings; 2.2.10 (A) - This code tests a proposed minor
amendment by its development plan's compliance with the existing Land Use Code (LUC),
rather than testing the minor amendment against some existing "better than" standard.
. There is not a compliance differential test, only a compliance test.
The Board misinterpreted the code on their motion for denial. The motion referenced 2.2.10
(A). The Board member concluded the minor amendment"is in less compliance with the
LUC than it was originally." Thus testing the minor amendment against the original wall
design rather than testing the development plan with the amended wall design for
compliance with the LUC.
On motion for denial, section 2.2.10 (21D) was referenced. The Board member said the
character of the development changed because the open sections of the wall were made
solid. This error resulted from a misinterpretation of 3.8.11 and the definition of non-opaque
versus open. To be a standard, 3.8.11 must have a literal interpretation of what constitutes
"non-opaque." An example of non-opaque is glass block. Motion for denial referenced
section 3.4.4. This code was misinterpreted and not even relevant to this case because it
refers to noise "generated on the property." Thank you.
Sincerely,
William E. Watson, Jr.
President, Preferred Capital Management, Inc.
Managing Member, LandSource, LLC
. 1136 E. Stuart Street#4203
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 221-3048
Division 1.2, Title, Purpose and.d uthority Section 1.2.1
DIVISION 1.2 TITLE. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Sections:
1.2.1 Title
1.2.2 Purpose
1.2.3 Authority
1.2.4 Applicability
1.2.5 Minimum Standards
1.2.1 Title
The provisions contained herein shall be known, cited and referred to as the "City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code," or the "Land Use Code."
1.2 2 Purpose
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public heait
safety and welfare bv:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with
this Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but
not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated
sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's
transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and
services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and
mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency
services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for
adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile
travel and encourage trip consolidation.
Article 1, Page 5
Supp. 3
Division 1.2, Title, Purpose and Authority Section 1.2.1(G)
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes
and other alternative modes of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential,
business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established
areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of
existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and
features.
M1.2.3 Authority
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins has the authority to adopt this Land
Use Code pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; Title 31, Article
2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Charter of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, and such other authorities and provisions as are established in the
statutory and common law of the State of Colorado.
12.4 Applicability
The provisions of this Land Use Code shall apply to any and all development of
land within the municipal boundaries of the city, unless expressly and specifically
exempted or provided otherwise in this Land Use Code. No development shall
be undertaken without prior and proper approval or authorization pursuant to the
terms of this Land Use Code. All development shall comply with the applicable
terms, conditions, requirements, standards and procedures established in this
Land Use Code.
Article 1, Page 6
Supp.3
Division 1.2, Title, Purpose and Authoring Section 1.2.4
I�
Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure or land shall be used and
no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved or structurally altered except in
conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is
located, nor shall a yard, lot or open space be reduced in dimensions or area to
an amount less than the minimum requirements set forth herein or to an amount
greater than the maximum requirements set forth herein.
This Land Use Code establishes procedural and substantive rules for obtaining
the necessary approval to develop land and construct buildings and structures.
Development applications for overall development plans, project development
plans, and final plans will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable
General Development Standards and District Standards. Building permit
applications will also be reviewed for compliance with the applicable General
Development Standards and District Standards, and will be further reviewed for
compliance with the approved final plan in which they are located.
1.2.5 Minimum Standards
• The provisions of this Land Use Code are the minimum standards necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code.
Article 1, Page 7
Sapp. 6
Division 3.2,Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.I(G)
(7) The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground
fixture requiring excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be
i accomplished by boring under the root system of protected
existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24) inches.
The auger distance is established from the face of the tree (outer
bark) and is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as
described in the chart below.
Tree Diameter at Breast Height(inches) Auger Distance From Face of Tree (feet)
0-2 1
3—i 2
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
Over 19 15
(H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan
Elements. In approving the required landscape plan,the decision maker
shall have the authority to determine the optimum placement and
interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees,
vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the
following criteria:
(1) protecting existing trees, natural areas and features;
(2) enhancing visual continuity within and between neighborhoods;
(3) providing tree canopy cover;
(4) creating visual interest year round;
(5) complementing the architecture of a development;
(6) providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually
intrusive site elements;
(7) establishing an urban context within mixed-use developments;
Article 3, Page 16
Supp.2
i
Division 3.1,Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.1.1(H)
providing privacy to residents and users;
(9) conserving water;
(10) avoiding reliance on excessive maintenance;
(Il) promoting compatibility and buffering between and among
dissimilar land uses;
(12) establishing spatial definition.
(I) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement
(1) Topsoil. To the maximum extent feasible, topsoil that is removed
during construction activity shall be conserved for later use on
areas requiring revegetation and landscaping. Organic soil
amendments shall also be incorporated in accordance with the
requirements of Section 3.8.21. .
(2) Plant Materials. The selection of plant materials shall be based
on the City of Fort Collins' climate and site conditions. A list of
allowable and preferred plant species that are highly adaptable to
the Fort Collins urban environment shall be available from the
Director.
(3) Plant Quality. All plants shall be A-Grade or No. 1 Grade, free
of any defects, of normal health, height, leaf density and spread
appropriate to the species as defined by American Association of
Nurserymen standards.
(4) Installation. All landscaping shall be installed according to sound
horticultural practices in a manner designed to encourage quick
establishment and healthy growth. All landscaping in each phase
shall either be installed or the installation shall be secured with a
letter of credit, escrow or performance bond for one hundred
twenty-five (125) percent of the value of the landscaping prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in such
phase.
Article 3,Page 17
Supp. 2
Division 3.Z,Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.1(X)
• (4) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-wide
utility easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit
may be required to protect underground electric lines.
(L) Visual Clearance or Sight Distance Triangle. Except as provided in
Subparagraphs (1) and (2)below, a visual clearance triangle, free of any
structures or landscape elements over twenty-four(24) inches in height,
shall be maintained at street intersections and driveways in conformance
with the standards contained in the City of Fort Collins Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets,
Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways.
(1) Fences shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and shall
be of an open design.
(2) Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance
triangle provided that the lowest branch of any such tree shall be
at least six (6) feet from grade.
(M) Revegetation. When the development causes any disturbance within any
Mnatural area buffer zone, revegetation shall occur as required in
subsections 3.4.1(D)(2) (Natural Area Buffer Zone) and 3.2.1(F) (Tree
Protection and Replacement).
(1\) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision
maker may approve an alternative landscape and tree protection plan that
may be substituted in whole or in part for a landscape plan meeting the
standards of this Section.
(1) Procedure. Alternative landscape plans shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for
landscape plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss
the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in
which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section
than would a plan which complies with the standards of this
Section.
(2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision
maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan
accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better
than would a plan which complies with the standards of this
Section.
Article 3,Page 10
Supp. 2
Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Standards Section 3.4.2
3.4.2 Air Quality
The project shall conform to all applicable local, state and federal air quality regulations
and standards, including, but not limited to those regulating odor, dust, fumes or gases
which are noxious, toxic or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles.
3.4.3 Water Quality
The development shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal water quality
standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and sedimentation,
storm drainage and runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous substances. Projects shall
be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance
with the criteria set forth in the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction
Standards. Treatment measures may include, but shall not be limited to:
minimization of impervious surfaces
runoff spreaders
infiltration devices
extended detention
constructed wetlands
sand filters
water quality inlets
3.4.4 Noise and Vibration
The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on
the property will not exceed the maximum noise levels as specified in the city's Noise
Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article 2 of the City Code), and so that any vibration
created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point
along the property line. Noise generated by emergency vehicles and airplanes shall be
exempted from the requirements of this provision.
r
Article 3, Page 70-2
SupP.5
Division 3.5.Building Standards Section 3.5.1
DlvisloN 3.5 BUILDING STANDARDS
Sections:
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Building
3.5.4 Large Retail Establishments
3.5.5 Convenience Shopping Center
These building standards should be read in conjunction with the zone district standards contained
in Article 4 of this Land Use Code.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible
when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should
be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards
contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained
in Article 4.
l P (B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing
V developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural
character of such areas by using a design that is complementary.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition
of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door
patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and
textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed
infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials.
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be
similar in size and height, or, if larger,be articulated and subdivided into
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on
the same block, or if no buildings exist thereon, then on adjoining blocks.
(See Figure 7.)
Article 3,Page 75
supp.2
1
I
Division 3.6, Transportation and Circulation Section 3.6.2(B)
of at least eighty (80) feet. Surface drainage on a cul-de-sac shall be
toward the intersecting street, if possible, and if not possible a drainage
easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac. If fire sprinkler systems
or other fire prevention devices are to be installed within a residential
subdivision, these requirements may be modified by the City Engineer
according to established administrative guidelines and upon the
recommendation of the Poudre.Fire Authority.
i
(C) Except as provided in(B)above for cul-de-sacs,no dead-end streets shall
be permitted except in cases where such streets are designed to connect
with future streets on adjacent land, in which case a temporary turnaround
easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least eighty (80)
feet must be provided. Such turnaround easement shall not be required
if no lots in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access.
(D) If residential lots in a subdivision are adjacent to an arterial street, no
access to individual lots from such arterial street shall be permitted.
(E) Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall have
+ a minimum depth of one hundred fiftv(150) feet.
(1) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by the applicant, the
decision maker may approve an alternative lot plan that does not
meet the standard of this subsection (E) if the alternative lot plan
includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the
judgment of the decision maker, protect such lots from the noise,
light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as
well as, or better than, a plan which complies with the standard of
this Subsection (E).
(2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted
in accordance with the submittal requirements for streets,
streetscapes, alleys and easements as set forth in this Section and
landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot
plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and
alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will equally
well or better accomplish the purpose of this Subsection (E) than
would a plan which complies with the standards of this
Subsection (E).
Article 3, Page 104
Supp. 4
Division 3.8, Supplementary Regulations Section 3.8.9(C)
(C) Solar energy devices, including but not limited to, overhangs, movable
insulating walls and roofs, detached solar collectors, sun reflectors and
piping, may extend into a required yard not more than three (3) feet.
3.8.10 Single-Family and Two-Family Parking Requirements
(A) For each single-family dwelling there shall be one(1) parking space on
lots with greater than forty (40) feet of street frontage or two (2)parking
spaces on lots with less than forty (40) feet of street frontage.
(B) Parking of any vehicle in the front yard of a lot on which exists a single-
family or two-family dwelling shall be prohibited unless such vehicle is
parked on an improved area having a surface of asphalt, concrete, rock,
gravel or other similar inorganic material, and such improved area has a
permanent border.
3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Fencing and Walls. Fencing and walls used for screening or landscaping
Mpurposes shall meet the following standards:
(1) If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be
made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "runnel"
effect by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone
columns, incorporating articulation into the design, varying the
alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of
fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In no instance,
however, shall a fence or wall be opaque for more than fifty (50)
feet for every seventy-five (75) feet of length, or proportion
thereof.
(2) Materials: Chain link fencing with or without slats shall not be
used as a fencing material for screening purposes. Except as
permitted below, no barbed wire or other sharp-pointed fence and
no electrically charged fence shall be installed or used in any zone
districts. In the Employment District and the Industrial District,
the Director may grant a revocable use permit that must be
renewed every three(3)years for installation of security arms and
barbed wire strands atop protective fences or walls, provided that
the following conditions are met:
Article 3,Page 149
Supp.2
Division 3.8, Supplementary Regulations Section 3.8.11
(a) The lowest strand of barbed wire is maintained at least ten
(10) feet above the adjoining ground level outside the
fence.
(b) Exterior area security lighting controlled by an automatic
light level switch is installed and maintained in good
operating condition.
(c) Such lighting is directed into the site and not outward
toward the perimeter.
3 ! (3) Fences or walls shall be:
1 (a) no more than four(4) feet high between the front building
line and front property line;
t
(b) no more than four(4) feet high if located in the front yard,
or within any required side yard setback area in the front
yard, except if required for demonstrated unique security
purposes;
(c) no more than six (6) feet high if located within any
required rear yard setback area or within any side va_rd
setback area in a rear yard;
(d) no more than forty-two (42) inches in height when located
within the visual clearance triangle described in Section
3.2.1(L), and, if over thirty-two (32) inches in height
within such triangle, fences shall be constructed of split
rail with a minimum dimension of twelve (12) inches
between horizontal members.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98)
3.8.12 Adult-Oriented Uses
(A) Adult-oriented uses shall be permitted only in the zone districts
established in Article 4 wherein such uses are specifically allowed.
i
Article 3,Page 150
Supp.2