HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO CITIZEN (9)Does the 3-story height limit found in Section 4.5(E)(1)(d) prevail over the
contextual height standards in Section 3.8.17(A)(3)?
While it is true that the general provisions of Section 3.1.2 specify that
Article 4 Standards prevail over those contained in Article 3, in the event
of a conflict between the requirements, more specific text found in Section
3.8.17(A)(3) overrides the general provisions. The first phrase found in this
Section, "regardless of the maximum building height limit imposed by the
zone district standards of this Land Use Code", clearly states that
applicant's have the right to pursue approval for building heights greater
than the maximum prescribed under Article 4. Section 1.7.2 specifies that
the more specific standard shall govern or prevail in cases where the code
provisions are conflicting.
Do the Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale Standards of Section 3.5.1(C)
apply to this development application if the justification for a building taller than
the maximum permitted within the zoning district is based upon the contextual
building height provisions of Section 3.8.17(A)(3)?
No. The stated Purpose of Section 3.5.1 is that the standards "should be
read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in
this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards of Article 4". Similar to the
response to the previous question, Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(c) is more specific
than the general standard of 3.5.1(C); therefore, it would prevail under
Section 1.7.2. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(c) permits the decisionmaker the
authority to increase or decrease the height limits for specific purposes
listed under that section.
Are other parts of the Land Use Code pertinent in application of Section
3.8.17(A)(3)?
Yes. 3.5.1(B) would also apply. However, it would be considered as
having an equal degree of specificity as 3.5.1(C) and would also not
prevail over Section 3.8.17(A)(3).
CC: Steve Olt
Paul Eckman
Greg Byrne
Planning & Zoning Board
Are other parts of the Land Use Code pertinent in application of Section
3.8.17(A)(3)?
INTERPRETATION:
In response to the questions asked above:
How is the term "adjacent" defined when it is being applied toward contextual
building height limits?
Two secondary sources of information, Black's Law Dictionary and
Webster's Third New International, have been consulted in an attempt to
further define "adjacent". Both definitions share one thing in common:
something "adjacent" is located nearby, but is not necessarily physically
touching.
Black's Law Dictionary
"Lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching"
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
"Not distant or far off; "Nearby but not touching"
Like the land use regulations in many jurisdictions, the City's Land Use
Code does not provide a specific definition of what constitutes an
"adjacent" lot or building when evaluating the compatibility of proposed
buildings within their context. To adopt a more specific definition, such as
within 400 feet as suggested in the interpretation request, would be
arbitrary given the myriad of physical factors that can come into play when
determining the appropriate height and spatial relationship between
buildings. Other factors, beyond the sheer horizontal distance between
nearby buildings, may influence whether a proposal is perceived to be
adjacent, such as:
• Topography;
• Existence of large trees;
• Width of adjacent streets; and
• Angles of vision predominately used in observing the building(s);
Based on this interpretation, evaluation of requests to use a "contextual"
height limit, rather than the height limit specified under the zoning district,
will be conducted on a case -by -case basis using these physical factors as
well as those deemed relevant by the City at the time of review.
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
DATE: April 12, 2002
SUBJECT:. Administrative Interpretation #2-02 regarding the application of
Section 3.8.17(A)(3), Contextual Height standards, of the Land Use
Code
BACKGROUND:
Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the Land Use Code, Contextual Height standards, permits
the use of a "contextual building height' falling between the zone district
maximum height and the height of a building that exists on adjacent lots. The
term "adjacent' is not further defined under this section or -within Article 5-Terms
and Definitions. The sole code reference is found in the wildlife habitat protection
standards of Section 3.4.1(F)(2). Under the context of these habitat regulations,
adjacent means "in the region immediately round about' the development site.
Section 5.1.1 gives the Director the authority to interpret words, terms and
phrases not defined in Article 5.
A request has been received to interpret several interrelated sections of the Land
Use Code regarding the use of the contextual building height provisions. The
following four questions have been posed for interpretation:
How is the term "adjacent' defined when it is being applied toward
determining contextual building height limits?
Does the 3-story height limit found in Section 4.5(E)(1)(d) prevail over the
contextual height standards in Section 3.8.17(A)(3)?
Do the Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale Standards of Section
3.5.1(C) still apply to a development application if the justification for
additional building height is based upon the contextual building height
provisions of Section 3.8.17(A)(3)?
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss AICP
Current Planning Director
Enc.
cc: Steve Olt
April 15, 2002
Paul T. Kitze
539 Spindrift Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525-3134
Dear Mr. Kitze:
Attached is a response to your request for an Administrative Interpretation of Section
3.8.17 (A)(3), Contextual Height standards of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Review of the Bella Vista PDP application, including the request to apply the contextual
height standards, will culminate in a public hearing before a decisionmaker. This
decisionmaker will either be an appointed Administrative Hearing Officer (Type 1
review) or the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2 review). The proposed land uses as
indicated on the Site Plan appear to be Type 1 uses. We still have some questions of the
applicant, however, about what type of potential food service (restaurant) use and office
use is being proposed. Depending on what is determined, the proposal could require a
Planning and Zoning Board public hearing.
The staff will prepare a written report to the decisionmaker analyzing the submittal
relative to adopted review criteria and this code interpretation. Analysis of the
applicant's contextual height request will be part of the staff report and will include a
recommendation from staff to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PDP. A
copy of the report will be available approximately one week prior to the public hearing.
I've also attached a copy of the formal, written comments sent to the applicant, dated
March 6, 2002, which responded to the initial set of development plans that were
submitted. These comments have hopefully captured concerns and comments as they
relate to this submittal.
I hope that this information satisfactorily addresses your questions. Please feel free to
contact me at 221-6750 or via e-mail at cgloss Qfcgovxom should you have additional
questions or want to get together to discuss the interpretation. I apologize for taking so
long to respond to your request.
Steve Olt -Fwd: Interpretation Appeal Page 1 j
From: Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com>
To: FC1.CFCPO(PBARNES)
Date: 4/22/02 9:18AM ` 'l
Subject: Fwd: Interpretation Appeal `tGov ex" Wow: j,�,tyL �l
1eeJ 2 Ji;5
Peter, I just sent this note to the Landings people who are interested. '"' �� U�
Thanks for you help.
Tom
--- Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Interpretation Appeal
> To: Jerry Appleby <Apple33@prodigy.net>,
> Tom and Jan Baker <tomandjan@thomashbaker. com>,
> Lynn Carlisle <carlisledds@attbi.com>, Steve Dellinger
> <ssd@adkcpa.com>,
> Jeff Emmel <jeff@clearwave.com>, Rob Hoffman
> <rob hoffman@hp.com>,
> BE Kindel <kndel@alum.mit.edu>, Tom Kitze
> <paulkitze@yahoo.com>,
> Cindy Leary <wolfpac2x@yahoo.com>, David Leary
> <david_leary@agilent.com>,
> Dave Lenort <lenort@aol.com>,
> Kathy Louderback <klouderback@miltonpropertyservices.com>,
> "GABRIELLE (HP -Loveland ex1) NUMAIR" <gabrielle_numair@hp.com>,
> Ilan Shamir <ilanshamir@yourtruenature.com>,
> Jackie Williams<jilliams@miltonpropertyservices.com>
> Per Peter Barne's suggestion, it looks like it wouldn't do much good
> to
> appeal the "contextual height' interpretation to the Zoning Board of
> Appeals, since it is not being applied to the Bella Vista project but
> is made generally. Since I will not be back in Fort Collins until
> about April 28, it would also be hard to meet the required deadlines
> for appeal. And we can still appeal the application of the code to
> the
> City Council if Planning rules favorably for the project and the
> hearing officer or the P & Z Board approve. If any of you have
> thoughts about this feel free to respond or take any action you want.
> Tom
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> http://games.yahoo.com/
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
_ _.. _P o � 02
Steve Olt Administrafived Inter reta4io
From: Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com>
To: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 4/30/02 12:16PM
Subject: Administratived Interpretation #2-02
Cameron, I just got back from a trip and have had a chance to review
the interpretation in more depth. First of all, the mailed packet
contained only the cover letter and the March 6 Staff Review of the
Bella Vista project. The Interpretation was not included, so I've only
seen the email version which I assume is accurate.
The interpretation is not sufficient to answer my request for
interpretation because there is no specific application of parts of the
code interpreted to the Bella Vista project as I requested. I expect
you to reissue the interpretation and apply it to the Bella Vista
project as submitted. I would like to see answers to the following
questions:
1. Does the Bella Vista lot meet the adjacency requirement of
3.8.17(A)(3) under the definition of adjacent in Webster's Third New
International Dictionary ("1 a: not distant or far off :nearby but not
touching b: relatively near and having nothing of the same kind
intervening : having a common border :...") when the Zoning Map shows
an intervening lot?
2. If "contextual height" is allowed for this project, will it,
as proposed by the developer, allow buildings of greater height in feet
than the Marriot, which is about 60 feet? Why are not the heights of
the other surrounding buildings that are closer to the site than the
Marriot not more important in determining "contextual height", allowing
a height intermediate to the neighborhood height (25-30 feet) and the
Marriot?
I would expect your response in a timely fashion. Contact me by
email or by phone (226-6651) if you have any questions or I need to
submit anything else to get the interpretation I requested.
Tom
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
CC: Steve Olt <solt@fcgov.com>, Peter Barnes <pbarnes@fcgov.com>, Paul Eckman
<weckman@fcgov.com>
Steve Olt - Re: Application of Height Cr +o Bella Vista Project Page 1
From: Cameron Gloss
To: "paulkitze@yahoo.com".GWIA.FC1
Date: 5/20/02 2:48PM
Subject: Re: Application of Height Code to Bella Vista Project
Mr. Kitze:
I apologize for not responding sooner to your latest request for a revised Land Use Code interpretation. It
was my intention to respond several days ago, but I was sidetracked with other duties.
After conferring with City staff, my position remains unchanged. The appropriate determination of whether
the Bella Vista PDP complies with the contextual height limits lies with the decisionmaker (either an
Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board, dependant upon the last plan submittal).
Any finding that I would render through a formal code interpretation may not necessarily impact the
decision of the decision maker regarding the approval or denial of any specific project. The decision
maker would not be bound to that interpretation.
This type of review also provides for the same type of appeal process for aggrieved parties. For instance,
if the project is approved, then an appeal to the Council could be made on the grounds that, in your
opinion, the decision maker failed to properly apply and interpret the Code. The City Council would then
become the arbiter of any appeal, and their decision would be binding on the specific project.
Please contact me should you have questions.
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Current Planning Director
>>> Tom and Sally Kitze <paulkitze@yahoo.com> 05/15/02 11:16AM >>>
Cameron, when do you expect to have a response to my request for
application of the height code specifically to the Bella Vista project?
Tom
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
CC: Gregory Byrne; Steve Olt