HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - DECISION - ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONd) Limiting the tallest building height at Bellavista to the height— in feet— of the Marriott Hotel
would result in no public benefit, but would likely result in a less attractive architectural
design.
i) There would be no perceptible positive difference in views from surrounding properties
if the maximum building height on the subject property was reduced to 65' to "match"
the Marriott. This lower building height (in feet) could practically be achieved by
severely reducing roof pitch, or by making all four building masses a uniform five, (5)
stories in height. Either of these possible solutions would likely be less attractive than
the proposed design.
G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 I NTERP 1.doc
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND USE CODE
Section 1.4.3(A) requires that all requests for interpretation of the Land Use Code be submitted
to the Director in writing. Please provide the following information and submit the request to the
Director of the Community Planning and Environmental Services.
NAME: BELLAVISTA LLC
c/o Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design Inc.
MAILING ADDRESS: 3555 Stanford Road Suite 105, Fort Collins, CO 80525
TELEPHONE: (970) 226-4074
SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR WHICH AN INTERPRETATION IS REQUESTED:
L.U.C. SECTION 3.8.17 (A) (3)
SPECIFICS/BACKGOUND OF THE REQUEST: _The specific request is to clarify that, for the
Bellavista development, "Contextual Height" is to be measured in stories rather than in feet. The
key points to consider in making this interpretation include:
a) The Code provision in question states that, Regardless of the maximum building height limit
imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be allowed
to use a "contextual" height limit. The allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point
between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on
lots that are adjacent to the subject lot.
i) The "maximum building height limits imposed by zone district standards" of the Code
are consistently expressed in terms of "stories", and typically not in "feet".
(1) In MMN,•the maximum height is expressed as "three (3) stories", except at some
intersections where, "a building may contain an additional fourth story'
(2) In the C district (including the Marriott and other sites west of Stanford Road), the
maximum height is expressed as "four (4) stories"
(3) In the CC — Community Commercial District (indicated by the Structure Plan as
appropriate adjacent to the Bellavista site) the minimum height is expressed in feet,
but the maximum height is expressed as, "limited to five (5) stories".
b) Section 3.8.17 defines what floor areas do and do not count as full stories, and sets clear
limits on floor to floor distance, limiting the maximum height of a "story".
c) The tallest buildings proposed at Bellavista (±78' 8') are no taller than three story buildings
that could — by Code — be constructed in any MMN district in Fort Collins (at 25' "floor to
floor", buildings of up to 75' — or even 100' at arterial intersections - plus mezzanines, walk-
out basements, sloped roofs, etc. are allowed without requesting an interpretation,
modification, or other variance). The proposed buildings at Bellavista then are, no taller in
feet than would be allowed regardless of location; The contextual consideration regards
the number of stories proposed, as related to the number of stories in the Marriott Hotel on
the adjacent lot. Section 3.8.17 ((A) (3) clearly states that, "Contextual Height.... shall not
be interpreted as requiring... lower maximum heights than imposed by the underlying zone
district."
G: \W R9000\96 00\9601 I N T E R P 1. d o c
Use Code was suggested by Assistant City Attorney Eckman, in 3.4.1 (F)(2): "meaning in the
region immediately round about". A city block away is not immediate.
Are other parts of the Land Use Code pertinent to application of 3.8.17 (A)(3)?
3.1.2 "In the event of a conflict between a standard or requirement contained in Article 3
and Article 4, the standard of Article 4 shall prevail:"
This would appear to make application of 3.8.17 (A)(3) moot.
1.4 (A) Paragraph 2, sentences 2 and 3: "Where any provision of the Land Use Code
imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code,
the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed controlling. In other
words, the more stringent controls over the less stringent."
If the subject matter is comparison of heights, 3.5.1 (C) requires comparison to buildings "on the
same block, or if no buildings exist thereon, then on adjoining blocks". Why should 3.8.17
(A)(3) not be subjected to the same restrictions?
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I hope this letter meets your
requirements for requesting an interpretation and I look forward to hearing your response. Please
don't hesitate to call or email me if I need to change or clarify any points made in this letter.
/�T-i
Paul T. Kitze
539 Spindrift Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525-3134
226-6651, paulkitze@yahoo.com
March 1, 2002
Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Subject: Request for Interpretation of the Land Use Code as Applied to The Bella Vista Project at
the NE Corner of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road
I was asked by the Landings Community Association Board of Directors to investigate
this project because it seriously impacts our neighborhood. In reading parts of the Land Use
Code, there appear to be diverse interpretations that can be made. We are, of course, most
concerned about the height of the buildings in this project. Last week, we supported rezoning of
the Bella Vista lot from T to MMN, but raised the question of height at the Planning and Zoning
Board meeting of February 21, 2002. For this request, we will assume that MMN is the zoning of
this property. It seems prudent that we obtain the City's interpretation and will follow the
procedures of 1.4.3 of the Land Use Code as we understand them.
Of greatest controversy is the application of 3.8.17 (A)(3) to this site and project. We ask
for the City's interpretation of the application of this code:
"Contextual Height. Regardless of the maximum building height limit imposed by the zone
district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be allowed to use a "contextual" height
limit. The allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone district maximum
height limit and the height of a building that exists on a lot that is adjacent to the subject lot. This
provision shall not be interpreted as requiring greater minimum heights or lower maximum heights
than imposed by the underlying zone limits."
The applicant has asked for a contextual height in excess of the MMN zone limit of 3 stories as
specified by 4.5 (E)(1)(d). His context point is the Marriot Hotel, which is in a different zone arrd
on a different block. The Zoning Map shows each lot (see 5.1.2 Definitions) created by platting
and sudividing that exists today on the block that the Marriot occupies. The Marriot lot, by any
reasonable definition of adjacent, is not adjacent to the applicant's lot. It is, in fact, over the
distance of a city block (400 feet) away. The only definition of adjacent that I saw in the Land
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.
�l
i
Commu...Ly Planning and Environmental . _vices
Current Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
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)?
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-67,50 • FAX (970) 41n-2020